Sports Illustrated Magazine
(owned by Time) published a story about Price that said some unflattering
things. Price sued for libel.
The suit was originally
brought in Alabama State Court, but Time successfully had the case
removed to Federal Court.
During discovery, Price asked
Time to provide the source for their story. Time refused.
In order to win a libel
suit, a plaintiff must establish that the accusation is false. Time
claimed to have a source for their accusations, but refused to reveal the
source's identity.
Price argued that Time was
either lying about having a source, or should have reasonably known that
the source was lying to them.
Time cited an Alabama State
Statute (Ala. Code §12-21-142)
that shields reporters from having to reveal their sources.
Specifically, the Statute
protects "newspapers, radio broadcasting stations or television
stations..."
Price filed an interlocutory
appeal, arguing that Sports Illustrated is a 'magazine', not a "newspaper,
radio broadcasting station or television station..." and therefore
not protected under the Statute.
The Trial Court found for
Price and ordered Time to reveal their source. Time filed an interlocutory
appeal.
The Trial Court found that a
magazine was not covered under the Statute.
The Appellate Court affirmed
and ordered Time to reveal their source.
The Appellate Court looked
to the legislative intent in the plain
meaning of the words of the Statute.
The Court noted that the
word "any" does not mean "all plus."
The Court found that the
common usage of the word "newspaper" did not mean
"newspaper and magazine".
The Court looked to some
thesauruses and found that "magazine" is not a common synonym
for "newspaper."
Although, Time was able to
find one thesaurus that did.
Most courts will not
consider a thesaurus as canonical for defining words.
The Court looked to some
dictionaries and reference works (including both legal dictionaries,
general reference dictionaries, and encyclopedias) and found that
"magazine" is not a common definition for
"newspaper."
Although, Time was able to
find some dictionaries that did.
The Court even looked at
old dictionaries from when the law was passed, to see what the common
usage was at that time.
The dictionaries all
pretty much said that a newspaper is made of folded unstapled sheets. So this entire case turned the
presence of a staple!
The Court noted that Sports
Illustrated did meet the dictionary definition of a
"magazine."
The Court looked to the common
understanding of the term
"newspaper," as opposed to basing their findings on
"dueling dictionaries."
The Court noted that the
Pulitzer Prize (given to newspaper reporting), has never been won by a
magazine, and that Sports Illustrated is a member of the Magazine
Publishers of America Association, not the Newspaper Association of
America.
The Court asked Sports
Illustrated if they'd ever referred to themselves as a newspaper, and
Sports Illustrated admitted that they hadn't.
The Appellate Court looked
to other Alabama Statutes that used the term "newspapers and
magazines" and found that since the Legislature had chosen to make
the distinction in 20 other Statutes, they probably did not intend for §12-21-142 to cover magazines.
The Court made the presumption
that every word in a Statute has "some force and effect" and
that no superfluous words are used.
If the term
"newspaper" really meant "magazines and
newspapers", then all those other Statutes would be wasting words
by specifically mentioning "magazines."
That's the Rule
Against Surplusages.
In this case, the Court chose
not to look at legislative history
or legislative intent. If
they had, they probably would have found that the lack of the term
"magazine" in the law was an oversight, because there is no real
justification for limiting freedom of the press on the basis of a staple.
