PressEthic

Meandering towards the end of the A Section of the New York Times yesterday, I found, on the lower left of A22, an article relating clues on how John Roberts may rule on libel cases.

Upon reading the story, my inner nerd called out, and I immediately pulled my Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions from the shelf. I wanted to gain a better understanding of the consitutional issue at hand.

Adam Liptak stated that while Roberts was a White House lawyer in the Reagan administration, he wrote a scathing memo titled "New York Times v. Sullivan: A Blight on Enlightened Public Discourse and Government Responsiveness to the People." I found this interesting on several levels: the case itself, Roberts' inclinations, and what this all meant when added together.

I was not fully versed on the case (though I should be), thus the Oxford Guide. For those in the same boat, I offer a brief explanation: In 1964, an elected official in Montogomery, Alabama, Mr. Sullivan, ued the New York Times, along with four other men, for libel.

The Times ran a one page ad for a civil rights group appealing for funds. There were several errors in the ad, which described a school house incident in the Montgomery. Some high school students had gathered on the steps of a high school in Montogomery, protesting segregation, and sang the Star Spangled Banner. The ad identified the song as My Country Tis of The. It also stated that several students were expelled for this protest. They were not, they were actually expelled for a lunch counter sit-in. Finally, the ad said that the entire student body had protested the expulsions, while only most of them objected.

The Supreme Court decided that when it comes to the press and public officials-- this was later extended to celebrities as well-- libel "must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment." The Brennan court argued that fear of getting the facts wrong in the name of libel could lead to dangerous "self-censorship." Such a thing "dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." Consequently, in a suit against the press, the court must prove malice. The statement must be made with knowledge of its erroneous nature, or more loosely, reckless disregard for pursuit of truth.

I can't express what a hallmark decision this is for the press. Considering the great scandals of late-- well, you get the point.

Liptak reported that the Roberts memo finds the Sullivan v. New York Times decision was poorly crafted, and "overstated the social value of the press." So this sounds big right? We better get our act together, Roberts is comin', and with a big stick. Well, Liptak also notes that in the one time--in court-- that Roberts was given the opportunity to oppose the ruling, he took a deep bow to stare decisis.

All of this gave me quite a bit to think about. Shall the press be excused from error? Does their responsibility to inspect the government cause their First Amendment rights to overshadow traditional libel laws, as applied to citizens?

So here's the punchline, and I thank you for entertaining me this far:

Today, on page A20, the Times posted another article by Adam Liptak. This one was titled Libel Memorandum Attributed Falsely To Court Nominee.

Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., nominated to be chief justice of the United States, was not the author of an unsigned memorandum on libel law that was the focus of an article published in The New York Times yesterday. The Times erroneously attributed it to him....[In addition] three people quoted discussed the Fein memorandum, provided to them by a reporter, on the assumption that it had been written by Judge Roberts.

I'd get really riled about such an blunder, but I'm just too tickled by the irony of it all.