Blog
ASNE joins amicus briefs supporting defendants in defamation cases
- By: ASNE staff
- On: 06/09/2016 15:11:35
- In: Amicus briefs
ASNE has recently joined two different amicus briefs filed in support of defendants in defamation cases. Each brief was filed in a different United States Court of Appeal, and they both deal with distinct issues relating to defamation. Each one is important to our members' ability to report on matters of public concern.
ASNE has recently joined two different amicus briefs filed in support of defendants in defamation cases. Each brief was filed in a different United States Court of Appeal, and they both deal with distinct issues relating to defamation. Each one is important to our members' ability to report on matters of public concern.
The first case is Von Kahl v. Bureau of National Affairs. Our brief was filed by 36 media companies and organizations in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in support of BNA, which was sued after innocently, but mistakenly, attributing a quote about the plaintiff (an individual convicted of killing two U.S. marshals in 1983) to a judge when it was actually said by a prosecuting attorney. A U.S. District Court judge declared the plaintiff to be a "limited-purpose public figure" but also found, contrary to almost all existing law since the Supreme Court's 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, that this clearly innocent error still constituted "actual malice" (the standard of fault required of a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit).
Our brief reminds the court that the actual malice test provides the additional "breathing room" necessary for the media to adequately report about public officials and public figures and warns of media self-censorship should the District Court decision be affirmed.
The second case is Tobinick v. Novella. Our brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, argues that the California anti-SLAPP statute can be raised by the defendant in a defamation lawsuit, which was filed in federal court. We note that an anti-SLAPP statute is essentially a defense based in the First Amendment, which means it raises a substantive question of federal law. Thus, application of state anti-SLAPP statutes should not be considered procedural in nature and limited to state courts. We further note that the majority of federal courts of appeal, which have addressed this issue, have sided with our view. This case is integral to our ongoing fight for widespread application of state anti-SLAPP statutes and for the creation of a federal anti-SLAPP law.