COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - A former House
candidate can ask a jury to decide whether he should be awarded damages
in a libel lawsuit against a newspaper, the South Carolina Supreme Court
ruled in an unanimous opinion Monday.
Former Democratic candidate Tom Anderson, who lost two elections for
House seat 84, sued The Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle following an editorial
in October 1997 that called him a liar. The editorial was written after
the newspaper and Anderson disputed what was said during an interview.
Anderson lost the 1996 election but decided to run again in a special
election in 1997. In the spring before the special election, a reporter
asked Anderson about the previous year's campaign and why he left the
state before the November election.
Anderson, now 72, said he told the reporter, Chad Bray, he left South
Carolina in the final weeks of his 1996 campaign to work in North
Carolina as an insurance claims appraiser for companies after hurricanes
Fran and Bertha. But Bray said Anderson told him he was called away to
serve in the National Guard.
Nearly six months after the article, an editorial entitled, "Let the
Liar Run" by Phil Kent, said Anderson had been "exposed as a liar"
because he told the newspaper he had been called away to the Guard, but
there were no records of his service.
Anderson sued, claiming he never told the newspaper that. He claimed
he suffered depression and missed business opportunities because of the
editorial. He lawsuit was initially dismissed, but he appealed.
"Mr. Anderson is elated, he feels like he's finally been vindicated,"
his attorney Doug Kotti said. "This decision is rather rare, usually
this doesn't happen. It's very difficult to prove malice in a libel
case."
The newspaper's parent company, Morris Communications Co., said in a
statement that the case was initially dismissed in 2000 by the Aiken
County Circuit Court because Anderson failed to prove the newspaper
knowingly printed false information.
"With the S.C. Supreme Court's ruling today for the case to be
decided before a jury, we are confident a jury will rule in our favor
again when the case returns to Aiken County," according to the company's
statement.
Kent, who now owns a media consulting company based in Atlanta, said
he stands by the editorial.
"I also was very fair in allowing him to respond, in a letter to the
editor, to the editorial to let him have his say," Kent said.
Kent left the company in 2001. Bray left in 1997.
Jay Bender, a Columbia media attorney who filed a brief in support of
the newspaper, said he was disappointed with the decision.
"The Supreme Court has done an excellent job in two of its previous
cases setting out the standard that a public figure must prove in a
libel case and I thought very clearly Anderson had not met that
standard," Bender said.
The court ruled there were reasons to doubt Bray's interview.
When contacted by a different reporter months after the original
interview, Anderson was asked if he was going to withdraw from the race
because it had been proved he had never served in the Guard.
Anderson, who said he hadn't even seen the previous articles, denied
he ever said he was in the Guard. He provided the newspaper a letter
from the supervisor of National Flood Insurance Program claims field
operations that he said proved he had been working in North Carolina. He
also provided a resume, which referred to service in the Korean War, but
made no mention of the Guard.
"This case is replete with circumstantial evidence of bad faith on
the part of Kent," according to the ruling written by Chief Justice Jean
Toal.
Five days after he provided the documentation and a month before he
lost the special election, the newspaper ran the editorial.
"We hold that circumstantial evidence exists as to whether Kent
recklessly disregarded the truth, and therefore acted with actual
malice, when he published the article," according to the ruling.
In addition to the ruling, Justice E.C. Burnett III wrote a
concurring opinion addressing journalists' responsibilities.
"The right of free press is not absolute in a society that demands
social responsibility and personal integrity," Burnett wrote. "Freedom
itself is conditional upon the recognition of a higher social duty to
pursue truth and justice.
"A publication that systematically panders to sensationalism and
degradation at the expense of the truth presents a cost too high for a
free society to tolerate. ... A reckless and deceptive media poses the
greatest danger to this freedom we so cherish."
Kotti said Anderson still works as an insurance claims adjuster,
mostly for major storms. He lost a potentially lucrative business
partner that could have been worth hundreds of thousands of dollars,
Kotti said.
"He won by standing on his rights as an individual," Kotti said. "I
commend him."
