Louis Clay Tharp, a New York based author and blog writer, will get a chance to prove whether he was defamed by local news media after being accused of first-degree sexual abuse and first-degree kidnapping of a minor.
Tharp was in South Carolina visiting his partner’s mother when he was charged with the crimes.
Tharp filed defamation claims against the Florence CBS affiliate, WBTW and two of its anchors; SCNOW.com, WBTW’s website; and The Morning News, the Florence daily newspaper—all owned by the Richmond based Media General. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied, meaning the case will move towards a jury trial. The federal district court in Florence held that a jury should decide whether the news organizations made defamatory statements due to the fact they had reason to doubt the news they reported. The court also said a jury should rule on whether the organizations acted with ill-will or spite.
Tharp sued the defendants after they reported on his arrest. The charges were later dismissed. The plaintiff claimed that “the defendants, without question or verification, broadcast and published the [minor’s] false, and at the very least questionable, charges in a biased and one-sided manner that presumed the plaintiff was guilty.” Tharp does not have a problem with the initial unedited news report, but the versions that were broadcast and printed edited out what he says is a key detail. The minor said he was held at gunpoint by one man who forced him to perform sexual acts on another man though video surveillance did not show a gunman was present. Tharp also says the news organizations did not attempt to contact his attorney prior to releasing the news reports.
The U.S. Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan provides extra protection to defamation defendants who can prove the plaintiff was a public figure or the alleged defamatory statements were matters of public concern. Even though he had written two books, runs a blog, and he was accused of a crime in a case that was a public interest story, the court held that Tharp was not a public figure. In that case, Tharp doesn’t have to prove actual malice on the part of the media outlets.
The court did hold that this story was a matter of public concern, so Tharp must prove the news organizations acted with ill-will or spite. The court held that such a debate is a jury question saying “arguably, a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants’ alleged failure to utilize some protective measures before publishing such a story was such a deviation from reporting practices that it amounted to a reckless or conscious disregard of the rights of the plaintiff”—which is the standard for proving ill-will or spite.
When it comes to matters of public concern, Tharp must also prove that the statements were false. Since the news organizations did not include sufficient information in their news reports, the court held that Tharp could arguably prove that the news organizations published a false statement about him.
The court rejected the news organizations’ defenses that the news reports were substantially true, the news reports are protected by the fair report privilege, and that the news reports are not actionable under South Carolina law because they are opinions. Had they been allowed, these defenses would have barred any recovery by Tharp.
One of Tharp’s attorneys, Jim Griffin from Louis, Babcock, and Griffin of Columbia, said that it is significant that the court found that a person who is accused of a crime in a case that has much public interest does not automatically make them a public figure.
Carl Muller, an attorney for the news organizations from Greenville, was not surprised by the summary judgment dismissal.
“Summary judgments are rarely granted so we will just proceed on towards settlement or trial,” he said.