Jersey's 'Record' Wins Defamation Case

(AP) New Jersey's highest court ruled Tuesday that a newspaper cannot be held liable for accurate reporting of allegations made in a lawsuit, though a dissenting opinion found that the story in question was unfair to the accused.

The ruling overturned a 2008 decision by an appeals court that found The Record could be held liable for its reporting about a federal bankruptcy court complaint that alleged a Glen Ridge man misappropriated money from a now-defunct telecommunications company.

The man, Thomas Salzano, sued the newspaper, saying the allegations in the complaint were unfounded. He said the March 2006 story defamed him by reporting that he was "accused of stealing" the money, thereby implying that he was a criminal.

Many of the allegations in the initial complaint were eventually dismissed, but the appeals court said The Record wasn't covered by the state's "fair report privilege" because the newspaper did not demonstrate the allegations were true or non-defamatory. The privilege allows newspapers to report allegations made in court documents without fear of being sued for defamation.

But the state Supreme Court overturned that finding, ruling that newspapers are not liable as long as they accurately quote allegations in a suit, which it determined the newspaper did.

"The portion of the challenged publications that was based upon a bankruptcy complaint was full, fair, and accurate, and thus, immune from a defamation suit because of the fair-report privilege," Justice Virginia Long wrote for the majority.

The court was split in its decision. While all six justices who heard the case agreed the fair reporting privilege extends to initial court filings, three justices found that The Record's article was unfair and shouldn't be covered by the privilege.

"The privilege itself has roots not only in the First Amendment freedom of the press and our cherished ideals relating to a fully informed public, but, in modern times, has strong ties to our desire to foster openness and transparency in all aspects of our government," Justice Helen E. Hoens wrote for the dissent.

"But the price to be paid for that shield of immunity must be our insistence that news organizations faithfully, carefully, and accurately perform their role and that they find no refuge in the privilege when the words that they have chosen inflict a greater sting than the truth."

A lawyer for The Record had argued that requiring journalists to prove the truth of a lawsuit allegation would be "riddled with difficulties for the First Amendment."

Salzano, a real estate agent and oil painter who represented himself at the hearing, said while he believes in freedom of the press, he doesn't believe that should allow for unfounded accusations to be printed just because they were alleged 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."