Legal News

False Light: A Thin-Skin Standard for A Thick-Skinned Society?

By Dan Slater

We always thought false light was one of those topics you study for the bar exam but then never comes up. How wrong we were! Yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court heard arguments in two false-light cases. Here’s the dope on each, reported here and here:

In 1998, the Pensacola News Journal ran a story about environmental issues surrounding a paving company owned by Joe Anderson. The piece mentioned that, while on probation for mail fraud, Anderson shot and killed his wife with a shotgun just days after filing for divorce. The story said law enforcement officers concluded the shooting was a hunting accident. The story was true, but Anderson claimed that the story, portraying him as his wife’s killer, put him in a false light. A Pensacola jury awarded him an $18 million judgment against Gannett, the owner of the News Journal, in 2003.

According to the reports, many justices were skeptical about false light — which has never before been recognized as an action by Florida’s highest court — at yesterday’s arguments. Click here and here for the briefs. “Isn’t the false light standard awfully vague for the courts and juries to apply with precision?” asked Justice Harry Lee Anstead. “Generally speaking we’ve been a society that’s supposed to have a thick skin, and this is a thin-skinned standard.”

The other false light case heard in Florida yesterday involved a lawsuit against Jews for Jesus. Edith Rapp alleged that a Jews for Jesus newsletter made it appear that she was a convert to Christianity. Her suit was dismissed by the trial court, and the appellate court asked the Florida Supreme Court to determine whether Florida allows false-light suits. Rapp is represented by Barry Silver, a former state representative. (Here’s Silver’s brief. Here’s the Jews for Jesus brief, filed by Matthew Staver.)

Rapp had unsuccessfully sued Jews for Jesus for reporting that her stepson had persuaded her to recite a Christian prayer and align with the group. Rapp’s lawyer conceded that the disputed report would not have been defamatory for all people, but said it seriously harmed Rapp in her Jewish community of Palm Beach County.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 07, 2008 (boomark / email).