Dear Editor,
Last month, a US federal court judge, as well as a jury, reinforced free speech with their rulings in a libel suit. That is the kind of ruling that is needed in Guyana’s court to protect free speech and the press. The former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, also former VP candidate of John McCain in 2008 against Barack Obama, filed a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times seeking monetary damages. The Times published an editorial assailing the Governor in June 2017, accusing her of inciting murder. It turned out that NYT article was inaccurate and the paper ran a correction the next day but offered no apology. Palin sued for libel.
After jury trial in late February 2022, the judge sent the case to the jury for a verdict. Suddenly, he announced that he would dismiss the verdict, if guilty of the lawsuit, saying the plaintiff, Palin, did not meet the threshold for libel. However, he said he would allow the jury to reach a verdict before dismissing it. The judge admonished the jury not to read the press about any reports of the case after he spoke to the media about his judgment. He gave this order presumably to avoid contamination of a directed verdict. The jury ruled that Palin was not libeled. She’d planned to appeal the judge’s ruling before the jury issued a verdict.
In order to protect the fourth estate, there are high standards to prove libel. The founding fathers of the USA wanted an unrestricted press to protect the republic (the people) from bad governance and to empower the media to expose corruption in order to hold officials accountable. One has to satisfy a number of requirements: information published is false, published with malice or intent to hurt, the newspaper knows info is false and went ahead and publish it anyway, reputation of the affected entity/person party is damaged (ridicule/held in odium, etc.), there is a loss of income as a result of the published article, among other criteria.
In rendering his ruling, the judge said that Palin failed to prove that her reputation was damaged as a result of the editorial. “She failed to reach the high standards required for public figures to make their case”. While not in the judgment, Palin may not have suffered a loss of income. If anything, she may be earning increased money through lecture tours, contributions, etc. Politicians are known to make a lot of money after leaving elective office. The editor of the paper admitted it was his fault in publishing the information without checking it, but said it was not done with any malice towards the former Governor. There was no evidence that the editor acted in bad faith or harboured animus toward Palin, and a correction was printed once it was brought to the paper’s attention. The judge agreed that the paper did not publish the information against Palin with any malice and was not aware it was false at the time of publication. “It was unfortunate editorializing on the part of The Times”. The paper said “It was an honest mistake” and the judge accepted the explanation.
Earlier, Palin had derided the press. The ruling is welcomed by the press globally with every media praising it and cheering the critical role played the fourth estate in reporting news and editorializing. Regrettably, in Guyana, the press is not protected from politicians and public officials, not even from frivolous lawsuits. Guyanese politicians and other public figures are thin skinned. They are quick to threaten lawsuits, even when asked about their role in corrupt or nefarious activities. Even if asked if they are related to your grandmother, they want to file a libel suit. Every media in Guyana – SN, KN, GC, and Guyana Times have been subjected to lawsuits to censor or silence them in holding officials accountable.
As a free press champion, I implore Guyanese judges to examine this US court judgment and give consideration to throw out lawsuits against the free press.
Sincerely,
Vishnu Bisram
