A friend mentions an article published in the Columbia Journalism Review of interest to bloggers. A blogger is in civil court in South Carolina, sued for defamation because he published reports that a (now former) state lawmaker was under investigation for ethics violations and would be indicted.
The lawmaker denied the investigation, and was never indicted. Now he wants damages and sources, which the blogger, Will Folks, refuses to give up. He may end up in jail on contempt charges, but his attorney has asked for an opinion from the SC Supreme Court. Journalists are unhappy, as he’s not a favorite of their’s. Local journalism professor Doug Fisher:
Indeed, the blogger’s use of unnamed sources is now at the heart of this current legal battle. How it shakes out is of concern for Doug Fisher, who teaches journalism at the University of South Carolina and was news editor in the state for the AP from 1992 to 2001. He worries about a potentially bad precedent that could have a long-term adverse affect for journalists.
“The case scares me,” he told me in a phone interview Wednesday as he gamed out the potential outcomes. One is that the Supreme Court declines to hear the case. Another is that the court hears it and rules in the blogger’s favor. Or the court hears it and rules against him. “That makes it one in three that you get a ruling that’s in your favor. I don’t like those odds.”
Which is also bad stats, unless you think the Supreme Court is just rolling dice.
On the bigger picture, this is a tricky situation. As a blogger who doesn’t try to make money off this hobby, I’m not at risk because I make no effort to publish original news, simply opinions concerning the news and the opinions of others (just think of me as a parasite on a parasite on …); nor will I pick sides. To me, the issues are tightly balanced, between the right to publish legitimate news vs the right not to be slandered by a malicious individual. How to prove it any particular case? That’s the fun part.
But – one could argue that the news is illicit as the proceedings are, I think, expected to be private; the leak of such news is probably against the rules, if not the law. But, of course, if it’s really serious, it should be reported in order to safeguard against corruption. Laws & traditions are not created with the expectation that everyone “plays fair”, otherwise there would be no point to having them in the first place. A law safeguarding privacy is equally a law covering for corruption.
I wonder if it’s an appropriate legal strategy to ask if the lawmaker really was under investigation. If not, then the contempt of court is applied; if so, then dismiss the case.
I’m not a lawyer, so I really have no idea. It just seems … logical.
