Shut the f*** up!

No more swearing on live TV - in the States at least - the US Supreme Court has upheld the FCC's so-called 'fleeting expletives' policy. See FCC v. Fox Networks (the case followed Bono swearing at the Golden Globe awards).

House passes libel tourism bill

In the shadow of the economic crisis, the US House of Representatives has passed a libel tourism bill. Good stuff.

Hatfill v. New York Times: Times wins libel suit launched by army scientist

On the AP wire this morning:

Court rules for NY Times in anthrax libel case

By LARRY O'DELL – 11 hours ago

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A former Army scientist who sued The New York Times for libel is a public figure who failed to prove that columns linking him to the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks were malicious, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a lower court's dismissal of Steven J. Hatfill's lawsuit. Hatfill claimed a series of columns by Nicholas Kristof falsely implicated him as the culprit in anthrax mailings that killed five people and sickened 17 just weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The court said Hatfill, who worked at the Army's infectious diseases laboratory at Ft. Detrick, Md., from 1997 to 1999, had inserted himself into the national debate about bioterrorism years before the anthrax attacks. Hatfill advised the government, gave public speeches, participated in panels and was interviewed by the press.

"Through these media, Dr. Hatfill voluntarily thrust himself into the debate," Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote. "He cannot remove himself now to assume a favorable litigation posture."

A 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Times v. Sullivan, established the "actual malice" standard for public officials and public figures suing for libel. The appeals court cited that case in its ruling.

"We're obviously delighted with the court's decision," said David McCraw, assistant general counsel for The New York Times. "We think it's an important reaffirmation of Times v. Sullivan, which is intended to encourage vigorous discussion of public events."

Hatfill's attorney, Lee Levine, did not immediately return telephone messages seeking comment.

Kristof's columns criticized the FBI for what he viewed as a lackadaisical investigation of the mailing of anthrax to members of Congress and to news organizations in New York and Florida. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft publicly identified Hatfill as a "person of interest" in the investigation.

The court noted that an FBI search of Hatfill's apartment was televised live, and that other media outlets besides The New York Times named him as a suspect in the anthrax attacks. Only then did Kristof refer to Hatfill by name in his columns, the appeals court said.

Joining Niemeyer in the opinion were Judge M. Blane Michael and visiting Judge C. Arlen Beam of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last month, the Justice Department agreed to pay Hatfill $5.8 million to settle a lawsuit claiming officials violated his privacy rights by speaking with reporters about the case.

On the Net:

• Hatfill v. The New York Times: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/071124.P.pdf

Federal free speech protection bills proposed to accompany New York's Libel Terrorism Act

Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter have introduced legislation in the Senate to protect US-based publishers from (the enforcement of) foreign libel judgments. A direct response to the Rachel Ehrenfeld case, the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 would be the federal equivalent of New York's "Libel Terrorism Protection Act", which was signed into law May 1 of this year. There is a parallel House Bill, sponsored by Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner.

These are excellent initiatives; even better would be if the UK courts would stop handing down judgments like the one against Rachel Ehrenfeld. The current Mosley case is very troubling in this sense - not because it is an example of good journalism, but because if the News of the World loses - which it certainly will - the judgment will have ramifications way beyond that particular 'bastion of journalism'.