Media Lawyers Ask for Wider Use of ‘Public Interest’ Libel Rule

Lawyers for news organizations asked the state Supreme Court on Thursday for new legal safeguards against libel suits over reports on matters of “public interest.”

The justices, in a far-reaching test of the competing rights of a free press and protection of reputation, were asked to require private figures to show that a newsworthy but false and defamatory report was made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.

The U.S. Supreme Court has established that often hard-to-prove standard for libel suits by public figures, such as government officials. But the high court has left it to the states to set the standard for private individuals, or those who have not sought public attention.

At present, 35 states allow private figures to win damages by merely showing negligence--or lack of reasonable care in publishing or broadcasting a news report. Only two states--Indiana and Colorado--require them to show malice or disregard for the truth.

News media attorneys told the justices Thursday that imposing the harder-to-prove standard would encourage full and free discussion of matters of public concern and lessen the intimidating burden of defending costly but unwarranted libel suits.

“We’re not asking for a license to be negligent,” said Robert S. Warren, a Los Angeles lawyer representing the McClatchy Newspapers, Times Mirror Co. and 17 other news organizations. “We think free speech about certain matters is so important it should not be punished unless it is a knowing or reckless falsehood.”

However, an attorney for the plaintiff in the case before the court contended that private figures--with fewer resources and opportunities to combat false reports--should not have to meet the same rigorous constitutional standard set for public figures.

The lawyer, Brenton A. Bleier of Sacramento, discounted any significant adverse impact on a free press.

“The communications industry . . . is not easily intimidated,” Bleier said. “I can’t believe that requiring the media to meet a standard of reasonable care will have any effect on their future performance or existence.”

The justices heard arguments in the first libel case to come before the court since the departure of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and two other court members defeated in the November, 1986, election.

The court, acting under newly adopted time limits for deciding cases, is to issue a ruling within 90 days.

The case arose in 1984 when Sacramento television station KCRA, in a news segment devoted to consumer affairs, aired complaints about allegedly “shoddy” work by a local building contractor on a home undergoing renovation under a federally funded program.

The contractor, Shirley Brown, brought suit against KCRA, saying that the allegations were false and that the station ignored her requests for a correction.

The suit was dismissed in Sacramento Superior Court on grounds that the broadcasts were protected under state law because they involved an issue of “public interest.” A state Court of Appeal agreed such protection existed, but said Brown could still take the case to trial to attempt to show the station acted in reckless disregard for the truth.

In Thursday’s hearing, the justices closely questioned Warren and L. Thomas Wagner, a Sacramento attorney representing the station, about the difficulty of defining reports of “public interest” and about the propriety of establishing new safeguards for the news media at the expense of private individuals.

Justice Marcus M. Kaufman appeared skeptical about applying additional protection simply because a news report involved a private figure who received public funds or participated in a government program.

“I once had a federal VA loan,” Kaufman remarked. “That would be pretty hard to take.”

Bleier, representing plaintiff Brown, argued that it would be too hard to define which reports were of “public interest” and which were not. State libel law, he said, should not be interpreted to grant such protection.