"Go ahead and sue"

I got my annual lesson on legal risks of publishing a newspaper at the Minnesota Newspaper Convention seminar about 10 days ago.

Our association's Legal Update is lead by longtime MNA attorney and media law expert Mark Anfinson. It's always kind of interesting to know what you can and cannot be sued for.

The Readers' Digest version.

Protection via "Decency"

Newspapers or other "internet hosters" cannot be sued for outrageous and libelous things internet posters and anonymous commenters put on a newspaper website. We provide the site and can edit and screen comments, but the liability still falls to the poster.

This protection comes to newspapers or any other corporate entity that hosts a website through Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects us from the nasty things our posters and customers want to say about anybody.

Those posters can be sued but in reality they are usually not sued because they have no assets. There is apparently a case, however, that is going forward where a developer is suing a blogger by the name of "Johnny Northside" in Minneapolis.

Might be a test case to see if someone can put a little fear into unrelenting and irresponsible bloggers.

"You can't say that"

Libelous statements in the context of a public meeting are still protected.

In other words, if a citizen attends a public meeting and tells the City Council they should investigate their police chief because it is their belief he is dealing drugs (real case here), he is protected from a libel action as is the newspaper reporting this event.

There are various defenses against libel in a public meeting, the thought being public debate and discussion will be hampered if the public is fearful what they say at a public meeting can be used against them. It also protects politicians from things they say as well.

However, if the newspaper goes outside the meeting and does more reporting, getting other information, the risk for libel becomes greater. A court will likely view the entire store as a whole, and make a judgment on libel from the entire context.

In this case, it's more risky to do more reporting. Now, most good newspapers will do more reporting, and usually giving the accused a chance to say something is not true helps.

Coleman-Franken vote case to be argued March 1

In a case that may surprise you, an odd twist to the Coleman-Franken recount issue will be argued March 1 in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

KSTP-TV is arguing some 13,000 rejected, but unopened absentee ballots from the 2008 Franken-Coleman race should be treated as public data under the law and should be opened. They don't identify voters.

Presumably, KSTP would do a story on how the rejected ballots would have affected the outcome of the Senate race. If there were something in those envelopes that suggested election fraud or more of them should have been rejected etc., it's remotely possible the U.S. Senate, could, in a long shot, remove Franken, as the Senate, via the law, has the final say on seating a member.

Long shot, not likely, and maybe much ado about nothing. But stay tuned.