Often when we cover civil liberties and the media, and veer off into the First Amendment's restrictions on press freedoms, we discuss the case of Richard Jewell, who died last week of a heart attack.
Jewell seemed to be proof of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. He was a security guard who spotted a suspicious package against a stage during the Olympics in Atlanta and began moving people away until it exploded. He has since been credited with saving the lives of many who were standing by the package. After a brief moment when he was considered a hero, the story shifted and he was suspected of having planted the bomb in order to orchestrate his fifteen minutes on the spotlight.
The FBI began to investigate him publicly, which led to media attention that portrayed him negatively. On NBC Tom Brokaw stated: "The speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case. They probably have enough to arrest him right now, probably enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well. There are still some holes in this case". Though he was cleared of any suspicion officially, his reputation was tarnished.
Which raises issue of libel. Jewell sued several news sources for their actions, but it was worth considering whether he was in fact libeled based on its legal definition.
As a simple matter, libel refers to the defamation--in a fixed medium, like a newspaper or TV report--of an individual's character based on false information. This is nice and tidy, but often the public has a compelling interest in knowing about suspicions of wrong doing on the part of public officials, that is people who habitually are in the media because they are elected officials or somehow choose to be there (think about Angelina Jolie, now stop).
In this section of class we tend to spend time on the case of Sullivan v. the New York Times. The case involved whether a full page ad taken out in the New York Times, which was critical of the actions of the Montgomery Police Department defamed the city commissioner--L.B. Sullivan, and whether he then had the right to sue. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that since
Sullivan was a public person, and that punishment for criticizing him would put a chilling effect on the debate about the nature of persons such as Sullivan, statements that would not be allowed were they directed towards private persons are protected if directed towards public persons, unless it could be proved that there was actual malice involved in the publication of the story, or a reckless disregard for the truth.
This applies to Jewell's case because soon after the original incident, he granted interviews, and thereby became a public person. He was not an elected official, but someone that would be of interest to the community.
The lawsuits he filed against NBC, the Atlanta Constitution and others were settled out of court, so we will never know whether he in fact was a public person, as understood by the Supreme Court. If so, the media outlets would not have had to pay him a thing, since they were simply building off allegations made by the FBI. They were nervous enough about the outcome to strike deals with him. Sadly, most of his settlement went to the lawyers who represented him.
I'm not sure if he ever received an apology from Jay Leno. I can't imagine that it would be much fun to be called the unadoofus before a national audience.
