Last Updated: May 20, 1999
Printer-friendly version
A
note from the president
I’d like to make the case for reform of libel laws across our country.
I think it’s a good idea, and I think the time is right to pursue it.
It’s not altogether new. Fifty years ago the Hutchins Commission called
on the states to develop alternatives to libel litigation, which it said
was undermining the free flow of information. More recent examinations
have reached the same conclusion: The current system neither adequately
protects First Amendment values nor provides plaintiffs an effective way
to vindicate their damaged reputations.
What is new are additional reasons to change the system. Foremost among
them is an effective alternative developed by the Uniform Law Commissioners.
It has been working for more than three years in one state, North Dakota,
where no libel suits have been filed since its adoption.
This alternative, the Uniform Correction or Clarification of Defamation
Act, was recently introduced in the New York legislature and is undergoing
hearings in Minnesota and New Mexico. It is likely to be introduced in
Michigan and Texas early in this legislative session.
Another important new development is the Internet and its newspaper
web sites. As The Kansas City (Mo.) Star recently learned in federal court,
offended Web-site readers can cherry-pick favorable jurisdictions virtually
anywhere in the country for filing suits related to information on our
Web sites.
Thirty states have some form of retraction statute, but aside from North
Dakota only four contain language ostensibly broad enough to cover on-line
newspapers. Most cover only traditional media — newspapers and broadcast.
Newspapers are going to want to see these statutes amended. Adopting the
UCCDA, which covers all forms of communication, is the cleanest and best
approach to such reform because it also would bring uniformity to retraction
statutes across the country, which now are a patchwork of widely varying,
incomplete, outdated and ineffective laws.
It would also provide newspapers and other businesses a sensible way
of dealing with private defamation claims from errors made in employee
reference letters and other business communications.
Another important development is our new understanding of the public’s
attitude about corrections. Despite the deeply held reservations some editors
seem to have about using corrections, running them when we make mistakes
does not harm our credibility — it improves it. ASNE’s national research
on credibility reveals that many readers feel better when they see
corrections in the paper. The research found that 78 percent of those
who frequently spot errors feel better about the quality of coverage
if they see corrections. Another 11 percent have neutral feelings.
The UCCDA is not complicated. In exchange for agreeing to run a timely
correction, news organizations gain immunity from both punitive damages
and loss-of-reput ation damages — the multi-million dollar judgments that
can put a newspaper out of business. The retraction statutes of only two
states other than North Dakota offer immunity from loss-of-reputation damages,
and neither of those (California and Nevada) contains language that covers
the Internet.
Because publishers will be relieved of all but economic injury caused
by defamatory falsehood, the uniform statute will naturally result in more
corrections, containing more information, published more prominently. This
is not a bad idea in a free society.
The act is well-balanced and effective. It does not interfere with editorial
discretion at all — the decision to correct belongs to the editor. It replaces
the costly and protracted litigation process with a process designed to
remove inaccurate information from the record as quickly as possible. It
requires that plaintiffs provide information to permit defendants to determine
exactly what part of a communication may have been false and defamatory
and why the plaintiff alleges it to be false. It offers plaintiffs injured
by false publications a legitimate opportunity for restoration of their
reputations, which is almost always their main objective, rather than the
false hope of recovering damages under current law. It also encourages
defendants in defamation cases to acknowledge their mistakes without running
the risk of admitting liability.
If a case does go to trial, the media retain all constitutional defenses.
And despite reservations expressed by the Society of Professional Journalists,
there is nothing in the statute that requires editors to back away from
the truth or abandon reporters. Most editors simply wouldn’t do it. Editors
who would already can find plenty of excuses for folding under the pressure
of a libel suit.
The other substantive concern of SPJ is that the model statute would
jeopardize the protection of confidential sources. This is a legitimate
concern that can be resolved with a technical amendment, as North Dakota
did, deleting in the case of a statement attributed to another person the
three words “identifies the person.”
SPJ and others also have expressed concern about the risk of more punitive
laws if legislatures open discussion of the model statute. An advantage
of the uniform law approach is that it discourages amendments and keeps
the Uniform Law Commission in the forefront as sponsors of a good public
policy bill, but editors in each state will have to weigh such risks against
the obvious gains from the UCCDA.
The uniform law has the strong support of ASNE, APME, NAA, the Uniform
Law Commissioners and American Bar Association.
ASNE has pushed the uniform law this year because it would bring significant
benefits not only to newspapers and other businesses but to the public.
It enhances the First Amendment values inherent in free speech and yet
provides a remedy for those whose reputations are placed in jeopardy.
Nationwide adoption of the UCCDA will not happen in one year. But, aside
from the benefits to the general public, there are at least two more good
reasons why it ought to be, as soon as possible: Our credibility and our
Web sites.
Seaton, ASNE president, is editor-in-chief of The Manhattan (Kan.)
Mercury.
