ShareThis Page
Tennessee high court rules for reporter in defamation suit |

Tennessee high court rules for reporter in defamation suit

In this Aug. 28, 2014 photo, Davidson County District Attorney Glenn Funk speaks in Nashville, Tenn. The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled Wednesday, March 13, 2019, in favor of a Nashville television reporter sued for defamation by Funk. Tennessee’s fair report privilege protects reporters from defamation suits when they report fairly and accurately on an official action or proceeding. The court ruled there is no malice exception.
In this Jan. 13, 2017, photo, NewsChannel 5 investigative reporter Phil Williams listens to Glenn Funk’s attorney during a hearing as part of his defamation trial in Nashville, Tenn. The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Williams, who was sued for defamation by the local district attorney.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The Tennessee Supreme Court on Wednesday expanded protections for reporters by ruling they can only be held libel for defamation if their reporting is not fair and accurate, regardless of their personal feelings toward a subject.

Nashville District Attorney Glenn Funk sued investigative reporter Phil Williams for defamation in 2016, arguing there is an exception to a law that protects journalists when the reporter acts out of malice.

The $200 million suit against Williams and WTVF-TV station owner Scripps Media cites news reports aired in 2016 based on sealed court documents. Funk has interpreted the reports as accusing him of soliciting a bribe, extortion and blackmail. Williams’ attorneys, in their pleadings, have said the stories simply reported on allegations made by others.

The case stalled over questions of what information Williams is required to hand over to Funk in the discovery phase. Funk wanted Williams to give him all the information he gathered and produced in reporting his stories so Funk could try to prove that Williams acted out of malice.

Tennessee’s fair report privilege protects reporters from defamation suits when they report fairly and accurately on an official action or proceeding. But there is precedent for considering whether a reporter harbors malice toward a subject.

Williams’ attorneys argued against that interpretation. They were joined by the Associated Press and a dozen other news organizations with operations in Tennessee along with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.

That brief argued that Tennessee precedent regarding malice was outdated and ran afoul of both U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the First Amendment.

In its Wednesday ruling, the high court presented a hypothetical in which two reporters cover defamatory statements made during a judicial proceeding. One of the reporters dislikes the person about whom the statements were made and the other doesn’t.

Under Funk’s desired interpretation, one reporter would be covered by the fair report privilege and the other would not.

“This result would neither advance the purposes of the fair report privilege nor protect the individuals about whom defamatory statements were made,” the court concluded. “The privilege can only be defeated by showing that a report about an official action or proceeding was unfair or inaccurate.”

But the case is not over. It now goes back to the lower court to determine whether the news reports were both fair and accurate and based on an official action or proceeding.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.