- ‘False light’ gets hearing
And thankfully, it didn't seem to go down very well with the Florida Supreme Court. The question is whether newspapers or broadcast outlets can be sued for casting a "false light" on facts and information in news stories, even if true. In this case, it was the Pensacola News Journal, which was reporting about environmental issues surrounding Joe Anderson's paving company in Dixie County. The story mentioned that while on probation for mail fraud, Anderson shot and killed his wife with a 12-gauge shotgun, just days after he filed for divorce. The story said law enforcement officers concluded the shooting was a hunting accident. Although accurate, the information supposedly inflicted emotional distress on Anderson by portraying him as his wife's killer. Instead of alleging libel and defamation, Anderson accused the newspaper of putting him in a "false light," and in 2003, a Pensacola jury awarded him $18-million. The 1st District Court of Appeal overturned the verdict because the suit was not filed within the two-year statute of limitations. Lawyers for Anderson argue that a four-year statute of limitations should apply to a false light claim. So that was the set-up to the Supreme Court hearing. From the Tallahassee Democrat:
An hour and 45 minutes of legal arguments had barely begun when Justice Barbara Pariente injected the first in what was to be a barrage of questions from the seven justices. Although the court's leanings can't be gleaned from questioning, most of the justices seemed to doubt that Florida should adopt the "false light" doctrine that permits suits over news items that are accurate or non-defamatory. "Generally speaking, we're a society that is supposed to have a thick skin," Justice Harry Lee Anstead told Silver. "This is a thin-skin standard." Justice Charles Wells said, "My concern is that if you can sue somebody for making a true statement, then there really is a great impediment to freedom of speech and freedom of the press... " He said reporters, editors and their lawyers would have to decide not only whether information is accurate, but whether its repetition might cause someone discomfort. "Isn't that one of the prices we pay for living in a free society?" he asked.
[CUT]
Gannett attorney Robert Bernius of Washington said Anderson couldn't sue for libel, since the information was true, so his attorneys tried another tactic to get a four-year limitation rather than two years. "The question is whether a plaintiff may end-run the statute of limitation by renaming a libel case something else," he said. Bernius said that if Florida recognizes false-light liability, "it will paralyze the press and it will have an impact and it has had an impact" already.
"False light" has never been recognized as an action by Florida’s highest court.
|
|
| 05:03 PM Mar 7, 2008 | Email the Daily Dragon | Email this Article | Post Comments |
|
|
