TRENTON — The state Supreme Court, citing the right of citizens to public information, ruled today that the media are protected from defamation lawsuits if they meet certain conditions when reporting on court cases — even if the allegations turn out to be false. In a precedent-setting case involving a Glen Ridge man and North Jersey Media Group, publishers...
Thomas John Salzano watches as Attorney Bruce S. Rosen, representing North Jersey Media Group addresses the N.J. Supreme Court as the court hears oral arguments today at the Richard Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton. An appellate court previously ruled that the Record should not have published information from court documents in a case that had yet to go before a judge. TRENTON — The state Supreme Court, citing the right of citizens to public information, ruled today that the media are protected from defamation lawsuits if they meet certain conditions when reporting on court cases — even if the allegations turn out to be false.
In a precedent-setting case involving a Glen Ridge man and North Jersey Media Group, publishers of The Record, the court said news reports reflecting a "full, fair and accurate" account of court complaints have absolute protection from defamation lawsuits.
"Members of the public simply cannot attend every single court case and cannot oversee every single paper filing," Justice Virginia Long wrote.
As the public’s eye and ears, the media need to be able to do their jobs, the court said. Long also pointed out complaints "are not sanitized, nor are they filtered through a veracity lens" when people read them at the courthouse.
Today’s split ruling reverses part of an appeals decision that said the media were not protected by the "fair report privilege" in reporting on initial pleadings — those in which no judicial action has been taken — if the allegations turned out to be untrue. That privilege allows newspapers to report allegations made in court documents without fear of being sued for defamation.
The appellate ruling left in question when the privilege would kick in. That could have put news organizations in the untenable position of having to verify news, or of having to wait, perhaps years, until cases were resolved before reporting them.
"It’s a happy opinion not only for the media, but also for the public," said Thomas Cafferty, who filed a friend-of-the court brief on behalf of the New Jersey Press Association. "We can report the news, and not history."
The high court upheld another part of the appellate decision, saying the privilege does not extend to defamatory comments made outside the courthouse.
Jennifer Borg, vice president and general counsel of North Jersey Media Group, said "essentially it’s a gag order on the press ... if that appellate court ruling had been affirmed."
The case before the high court stemmed from a March 2006 article in The Record about a federal bankruptcy court complaint alleging Thomas John Salzano, 27, of Glen Ridge, misappropriated $500,000 from NorVergence, a former Newark telecommunications company.
Salzano, who never worked for the company two of his relatives ran, said several statements were false and defamatory. He said use of the words "stealing" and "stolen funds" in the article "imputed criminal conduct to him," according to the ruling.
That sent the Supreme Court to the dictionary.
"To be sure, the report and headline used the words "stolen" and "stealing," which were not used in the complaint; however, plaintiff’s contention that that made the report inaccurate is wide of the mark," Long wrote.
Long cited Webster’s II New College Dictionary and concluded "the allegation in the complaint that plaintiff ‘unlawfully misappropriated’ funds belonging to NorVergence fits comfortably within the definition of ‘steal.’"
Two justices sided with Long, but three others disagreed, taking issue with the use of "steal." While they agreed the initial pleadings exception to the fair report privilege should be abandoned, they did not think the account published in the newspaper, and republished elsewhere, met the standard for protection.
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner did not participate.
Salzano, who represented himself at the hearing, said he believes in freedom of the press, but doesn’t think unfounded accusations should be allowed to be printed just because they were in a lawsuit.
"My reputation is still very much damaged," he said. "I went the way of the courts, and unfortunately I didn’t find relief."
The Associated Press contributed this report.
Previous coverage:
• N.J. Supreme Court hears libel case involving The Record's report on lawsuit