"Retract that or I'll sue"

Three to five times per year, we get threatened with legal action.

Usually it's from the subject of a story who says they didn't say what we quoted in the newspaper. As you can expect, what they said probably did not reflect well on them or their family. Or, in other cases, they didn't think what they said would sound like it came out or produce a barrage of negative feedback.

A rather remarkable exchange in a Nicollet County courtroom stands as the latest threat of legal action. In an exchange during the sentencing of a case involving the death of a baby, in-laws went after each other, each defending their side of the husband-wife relationship. The father was accused of causing the baby's death, and eventually plead to a lesser charge but will do jail time.

One in-law told the mother they hoped she'd burn in hell, suggesting she was somehow the one who should be on trial. The mother and her mother responded in kind with threats of physical violence. Our reporter witnessed the conversation, transcribed it and put it in his story.

Who denied the allegation doesn't really matter. But we stood by our story. We haven't had a call from a lawyer yet.

That's the way these things usually play out. Even though we're all led to believe in America you can sue anybody, it's very difficult under our Constitution that provides substantial protection to the press.

Truth is always a defense against libel actions. If we were there, and we took notes, published accurately what was said, no matter how bad it might sound, we're protected by the First Amendment. Supreme Court precedents have supported the truth defense throughout history.

Of course, some such cases have nuances, and nothing is every guaranteed when you go before a jury, but the old saying applies: If you're in front a reporter, if you don't want it in the newspaper, don't say it.

A courtroom is one of the most important public places in a democracy. Taxpayers deserve to know what's being said and what's going.