...unless it shines a false light, apparently.
We were talking yesterday about the 290 pound sheriff down in Florida who kept crying that he had been "slandered" when a resident noted his girthliness and wrote about it in the paper.
As noted in the comments, truth is generally a defense to defamation, whether libel or slander, and the exception to that came up today in the news. Of course, it's out of Florida, too, which seem to be rushing headlong in its efforts to outdo California in judicial freakishness.
Judge OKs $18 million false light verdict against Pensacola paper
By BILL KACZOR
The Associated Press
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — A judge has dismissed a claim for punitive damages but upheld an $18.28 million jury verdict against the Pensacola News Journal for actual harm to a businessman by casting him in a "false light."
Circuit Judge Michael Jones' decision, dated Wednesday, cleared the way for a final judgment and then the News Journal and its parent, Gannett Co. Inc., will appeal, defense lawyer Dennis Larry said Thursday.
"We'll vigorously debate the various constitutional issues that are involved in this case," Larry said.
A jury in December 2003 ruled for Joe Anderson Jr., founder of the Anderson Columbia road paving company in Lake City.
He alleged the newspaper's use of the term "shot and killed" in a story falsely implied he had murdered his wife although the article two sentences later noted authorities determined it had been a hunting accident.
The News Journal referred to the shooting, that occurred several years earlier, in a series on Anderson and his company that it published in 1998 and 1999.
I think he ought to just be glad it wasn't Reuters, who would have called it a "hunting accident."
The jury was unable to agree on punitive damages so Jones ordered a second trial on that issue. He dismissed that part of the suit Wednesday to punish Anderson and his lawyers for violating his order to keep the newspaper's pretrial polling data confidential.
"Anderson's violation of the court's order and instructions is both unjustified and inexcusable," Jones wrote. "The court's substantial concern for the privacy of the survey participants was rendered meaningless by Anderson's stubborn disobedience of this court's order and instructions."
A lawyer for Anderson did not immediately return a call seeking comment. One of his attorney's last week admitted the order had been violated but suggested a fine would be sufficient punishment.
Jones had ordered the newspaper to give a list of people polled to Anderson's lawyers only to determine if it included anyone called for jury duty, which it did not. The lawyers never returned the list as required. Anderson then used it to obtain information from poll participants for a second lawsuit, still pending, alleging he was slandered by the questions.
Jones denied newspaper requests to reverse the jury verdict or grant a new trial without explanation. Larry said none was needed because that decision was consistent with Jones' prior rulings on similar newspaper motions and the same issues will be raised on appeal.
This is the first false light case tried in Florida. A similar suit against the CBS program "60 Minutes" was dismissed in Sarasota because the challenged material was true.
The News Journal's lawyers last week argued Anderson's verdict should be thrown out because no other court ever has let a plaintiff win a false light case without proving the challenged material was itself false.
Bruce Rogow, a lawyer for Anderson, said it was enough to prove the impression left by the article was false even if its content was true.
We are in a lot of trouble since the Axis often leaves the wrong impression.
Posted by: Larry Anderson at April 7, 2005 03:37 PMWhat this "we" business, Kemosabe!?
Posted by: Terry O. at April 7, 2005 03:41 PM