Replies

a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

Sorry, but I don't want a six-person jury to be second-guessing news outlets as to whether their stories are "false, distorted, or slanted". The truth or falsity of a story should not be subject to a jury trial, and journalists should not have to prove anything just to avoid huge damage awards.

When it comes to matters of slander and libel, there is a very high legal standard which the victim must meet in order to prove intentional, false and malicious action by the supposed slanderer/libeler and to prove that the victim was damaged. We must always be extremely cautious about any laws which threaten to infringe on our First Amendment rights.

In a free society, people have a right to say unpleasant and hurtful things, to vigorously disagree with each other, and even to lie.

We must always be extremely cautious about any laws which threaten to infringe on our First Amendment rights.

True, but we must also be extremely cautious about allowing those with power to abuse it at the expense of the innocent.

If someone is harmed by a negative news report, then they should have a way to recover damages - reliably and fairly. The First Amendment alone is not a justification for allowing that harm to go uncorrected. I'm not advocating prior restraint of any news story, only just compensation if harm has been done due to a lie.

There is only one justification for a harmful report: The Truth. If the news organization showed that their report was accurate and truthful, then the harm was not caused by their report, but by the behavior on which they reported.

If we made truth the only valid defense when libel/slander harm has been done, it would require those with the power of publicity to get their facts straight (as eventually determined by a jury, if necessary). Willful ignorance ("I don't care if my carelessness harms someone.") is not a defense for other kinds of harm - it may even be a compounding factor. Holding libel/slander to the same standard as other torts is not a harm to the country, to our rights, or to the First Amendment. But don't get me started on obscene damage awards - in either case.

I don't think the libel/slander laws apply in this case, because the subject of the report was not her reputation. The First Amendment might apply, but not libel/slander.