0

Suppose the New York Times writes "Sources say the celebrity John Doe raped his daughter" and they truly found two anonymous people (i.e., two sources) beforehand with that claim.

How responsible is the company in civil court if the claim is false?

Of course, the company will lose readers as its reputation for finding good sources falls, but I'm wondering how egregious of a statement would be permitted before New York civil law would punish it further.

I assume the company would have civil liability if they knew the claim was false and simply had knowingly found two liars, right?

But, if the company had the tiniest suspicion of truth, are they instead protected from libel? It seems the news is quite free to propagate rumors, so I'd like to know the limit. Are there precedents of libel like this where the publisher never actually lied?

bobuhito
  • 993
  • 1
  • 8
  • 17

1 Answers1

2

For a public figure in , the standard is actual malice: “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

A newspaper can be negligent in checking its information, but it can’t be reckless. It would be reckless for a newspaper to publish a claim that I made about person X without them verifying that I actually know person X, could have actual knowledge of the claim and could provide reasonable support for my claim if they are going to attribute me as a “source” because the word implies that I know what I’m talking about. If they are going to use my name, then they are not providing any truth weight of their own.

Dale M
  • 208,266
  • 17
  • 237
  • 460
  • In my specific example to make sure I understand, the company could lose a libel suit if it had also interviewed the daughter who vehemently denied the claim, but then had left this denial out of the publication, right? Do you also have any actual precedent examples where a company was found guilty of libel? I'm not aware of guilty precedents, but they would help to understand the somewhat arbitrary threshold for "recklessness" towards a public figure. – bobuhito Jul 13 '19 at 13:28
  • By the way, a Twitter precedent would be interesting, but it is probably too early to ask for them. This article from late 2017 makes me suspect that no guilty verdicts (ignoring out-of-court settlements) have ever come in favor of a public figure over a tweet: https://www.minclaw.com/how-to-report-slander-on-twitter – bobuhito Jul 13 '19 at 13:39
  • @bobuhito Anyway, the claim that "sources say the celebrity John Doe raped his daughter" is not false. – phoog Jul 14 '19 at 03:36
  • Claim = "the celebrity John Doe raped his daughter" = FALSE (I still think this is all clear in my question) – bobuhito Jul 14 '19 at 12:45
  • @bobuhito actually the claim is that " sources say ...." OTOH, if the NYT had no source (even if anon ) that would be malice – BobE Jul 15 '19 at 23:48
  • @bobuhito there are two claims. Some source has (or sources have) claimed that John Doe raped his daughter. The newspaper, however, has only reported the fact that sources have made that claim, which is true, even if the claim itself is false. – phoog Jul 16 '19 at 01:24
  • I understood from the beginning that you can always make a higher-level claim from any claim. In my question, the claim was false, the higher-level claim was true, which was exactly why I asked and still can't answer: Has a company ever been found guilty of libel towards a public figure in this case? – bobuhito Jul 16 '19 at 02:46
  • "In January, malicious rumours appeared on twitter that had supposedly raped his daughter", would that be safe to report? – gnasher729 Jun 30 '22 at 11:14