COLUMN: This risky business

From Jason Brenner's "My 20 Inches," Fall '96 From Jason Brenner's "My 20 Inches," Fall '96Multi-billion dollar libelFrom Jason Brenner's "My 20 Inches," Fall '96Multi-billion dollar libeljudgements are suffocatingFrom Jason Brenner's "My 20 Inches," Fall '96Multi-billion dollar libeljudgements are suffocatingthe media's ability toFrom Jason Brenner's "My 20 Inches," Fall '96Multi-billion dollar libeljudgements are suffocatingthe media's ability tocommunicate vitalFrom Jason Brenner's "My 20 Inches," Fall '96Multi-billion dollar libeljudgements are suffocatingthe media's ability tocommunicate vitalinformation to the public. From Jason Brenner's "My 20 Inches," Fall '96Multi-billion dollar libeljudgements are suffocatingthe media's ability tocommunicate vitalinformation to the public.Freedom of the press in America is alive and well, protected by the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case. And if you believe that, I've got a lush 12-acre estate in scenic Camden I'd like to sell you. You see, this column was not supposed to be written about libel or the media's fear of lawsuits. This column originally discussed a Penn off-campus landlord who, without getting into specifics, broke a housing agreement with me. When the DP faxed my column to its lawyer (with my knowledge and consent), he said it was too "clearly libel-risky" and probably shouldn't appear in print. Although what happened to me could be fully corroborated by six other people as well as cancelled checks and receipts, the DP just couldn't risk facing a lawsuit. Even though my column was an opinion piece, and thus held to less rigid standards than straight news stories, the folks at 4015 Walnut Street felt it was too big a risk. How about if I deleted the name of the individual in question, I asked? Better, but not good enough. And now the Penn community will never know about the underhanded tactics of at least one landlord renting to University students -- unless the DP's crack reporting staff starts doing some investigation of its own. (Don't worry, I'll help.) Don't get me wrong. I'm not angry at the DP or the lawyer who informed us that printing my column would have exposed me and the paper to the possibility of a libel suit, because the landlord I was so eager to expose is not a public official. I am angry at a legal system that encourages the suppression of information so vital to the public's knowledge. In a libel case, whether or not the defendant and his or her publication are eventually vindicated, the media firm stands to lose millions of dollars in defense fees. Bruce Sanford, a First Amendment lawyer in Washington, told The New York Times that the most simple of libel cases will require the defense to spend from $20,000 to $500,000 on pre-trial costs alone. That's not exactly pocket change to the DP. Sanford's estimates are on the conservative side, though. Take the case of Dan Biddle, a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter who reported on the questionable behavior of the members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Biddle's series appeared in the Inquirer in May 1983 and was later reprinted in a tabloid supplement. The reprint contained the same material as the original, along with an editorial and cartoon. Justice James McDermott, however, did not find the story to his liking and decided to sue Biddle. In 1990, a jury found that the original series was true and ruled on the side of the Inquirer. It also found, however, that a reprint of the same series of stories distributed to the 1984 conference of the American Judicature Society and the American Bar Association, was false and therefore libelous. Justice McDermott was awarded $6 million in damages. The year is now 1996 -- and that case has not yet been resolved. The Inquirer has appealed the case, ironically, to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Inquirer is out $6 million and Dan Biddle has wasted 13 years of his life in court proceedings, initiated because he tried to report on issues that greatly affect the lives of every citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ABC, facing a $10 billion libel suit (no, that's not a typo), issued an on-air apology to Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds last year for a report on Day One. ABC had accused the companies of adding nicotine to cigarettes to encourage addiction and profits -- but the network turned and hid when it saw an eleven-figure libel suit staring it squarely in the eyes. Who benefits from this bowing to pressure? Certainly not the public, whose health depends on knowledge of this type uncovered by ABC's producers and reporters. The list of media firms who have caved to legal pressure and withdrawn pieces from their pages or the airwaves seems endless. Those who stand with their principles can suffer multi-billion dollar lawsuits. Some media firms have collapsed in the process. If you think you're getting all the news you need to know, you'd better think again. The news you read in the DP and other publications isn't necessarily "All the news that's fit to print." Throughout this fine country and here at the University of Pennsylvania, the First Amendment is dead, made null and void by the very legal system that was created to protect it.