PLATFORM : You Can Quote Him
The court took a step in the right direction by overturning the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Masson vs. Malcom and the New Yorker. The lower court had dismissed psychoanalyst Jeffrey Masson’s libel suit, effectively approving the fabrication of quotes so long as they were “rational interpretations” of ambiguous remarks.
The high court reinstated Masson’s lawsuit. Still, the court majority ruled that the act of deliberately altering quotes, so long as the revision does not result in a material change in the statement’s meaning, is not enough to allow a plaintiff to win a libel suit.
This breathing room is probably good news for conscientious reporters who make every effort to ensure the accuracy of a quote, but might make a minor mistake. But for irresponsible journalists, this slight opening is wide enough to drive a truck through.
Justices Byron White and Antonin Scalia agreed with the majority but also reached the common-sense conclusion that if reporters are not certain of the accuracy of a quote, they should paraphrase.
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
