No, the magazine can't get in trouble. There is a special legal shield for journalists called the 'fair report privilege.' This protection allows them to report on official government business without being held responsible for whether the government's information is true. The court decided that this shield should also apply to secret government files, not just public records. The court's reasoning was that the public has a right to know what its government is up to, especially regarding important topics like political corruption and organized crime. As long as Time magazine gave a fair and accurate summary of what the FBI files said, it is protected, even if the information in the files turns out to be wrong.

Yes, Time magazine was allowed to publish the article under Pennsylvania law because it fairly and accurately summarized FBI documents, which are official government reports. It's important for the public to be informed about what the government is doing, and this outweighs someone's complaint that the reports said something bad about them. The Constitution also supports letting the press share information that the public would find important. It doesn't matter how Time got the information, as long as their article was a fair and accurate summary. Pennsylvania courts have said this protection for the press is broad. There are three main reasons for this protection: (1) the press is telling the public what they could have seen or heard themselves, (2) letting the public know what's going on helps make sure the government is doing its job properly, and (3) the public has a right to know about important issues. All of these reasons apply here, since the article was about an investigation into possible crimes by a Congressman. While this protection for the press can't be stretched too far, it makes sense here, where the information could reveal bad behavior by an elected official.

A third rationale for the fair report privilege rests... on the public's interest in learning of important matters

In our view, once it is established that the publication is reporting on a judicial proceeding, "how a reporter gathers his information concerning a judicial proceeding is immaterial provided his [or her] story is a fair and substantially accurate portrayal of the events in question

In finding a privilege for the publication of a summary of Federal Bureau of Investigation documents, which identified the plaintiff as a member of an organized crime "family," the Third Circuit explained that courts have, "as a matter of federal law, expressed reluctance to hold the press responsible for publication of defamatory statements originally uttered by others."

—grew out of an article published by Time magazine'which discussed suspected criminal activities of then-Congressman Daniel J. Flood and the fact that Flood had been under investigation by federal law enforcement authorities.

This authority illustrates that the fair report privilege is raised in a variety of factual situations and that, as comment d to Section 611 indicates, courts in other jurisdictions disagree on its scope

—the Third Circuit held that fair and accurate reports of FBI materials not released to the public were privileged.

"The fair report privilege... developed as an exception to the common law rule that the republisher of a defamation was subject to liability similar to that risked by the original defamer."

The fair report privilege allows the press to publish accounts of official proceedings or reports even when the underlying proceedings or reports contain defamatory statements, as long as the accounts present a fair and accurate summary.

—as a case in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had announced the fair report privilege in "broad terms,"

The fair report privilege, as recognized by Pennsylvania courts, is contained in section 611 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

Yes, the common law fair report privilege protects the publication. This privilege, as defined by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611, extends to reports on 'official action or proceeding,' which the court interprets to include non-public, confidential government documents like the FBI reports at issue. The court's reasoning is based on Pennsylvania precedents like Sciandra v. Lynett, which broadly applied the privilege to government reports on organized crime. More importantly, the decision is guided by the strong public policy rationales underlying the privilege: 1) the 'public supervision' rationale, which encourages public scrutiny of government agencies like the FBI and the conduct of elected officials like Congressman Flood, and 2) the 'informational' rationale, which recognizes the legitimate public interest in learning about matters of significant concern like organized crime. The court also noted that constitutional principles from cases like Cox Broadcasting and Landmark Communications, which protect the reporting of governmental affairs, reinforce the decision to extend the common law privilege. Finally, the court found no abuse of the privilege, as the Time article was a fair and accurate summary of the FBI documents.

Yes, Time magazine's publication was privileged under Pennsylvania law because the article was a fair and accurate summary of FBI documents, which are considered official government reports. The public's interest in being informed about government affairs and the proper administration of justice justifies the privilege. Constitutional considerations also support dissemination of information of public interest, reinforcing the fair report privilege. The method of gathering information is immaterial as long as the publication is a fair and substantially accurate portrayal of the events in question. Pennsylvania courts have recognized the privilege in broad terms, consistent with Section 611 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Three policies underlie the fair report privilege: agency (informing the public of what they could have witnessed firsthand), public supervision (scrutiny fosters proper administration of government), and the public's interest in learning of important matters. All three rationales apply here, as the article reported on organized crime investigations implicating a public official. While care must be taken not to overextend the privilege, it is appropriate when, as here, the information may shed light on a Congressman's alleged criminal behavior.

Medico v. Time, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot