A chilling decision.

Byline: The Register-Guard

For the most part, the First Amendment's protections of press freedom have proven so resilient - particularly in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court - that many journalists assume truthful reporting to be virtually bulletproof.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court just shot a huge hole through that assumption. By refusing to hear a Pennsylvania case last week, the justices let stand a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that a newspaper can be forced to pay damages for having truthfully reported that a city councilman called the mayor and the council president "liars," "queers" and "child molesters."

Those are unquestionably defamatory statements, and the mayor and the council president had every right to sue the incendiary councilman who uttered the insults in public. But they also sued the Daily Local News, the West Chester, Pa., newspaper that printed the story about Councilman William T. Glenn Sr.'s outrageous slurs.

A trial judge dropped the newspaper from the case and ruled that the councilman had defamed his two colleagues. Glenn was ordered to pay them $17,500 in damages. Mayor Alan Wolfe and Councilman James Norton appealed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reinstated the libel lawsuit against the reporter, his editor and the newspaper. That part of the case is still awaiting trial.

A look at the facts of this case underscores the chilling implications of the Supreme Court's decision. Name-calling and conflict had so frequently disrupted the Parkesburg, Pa., City Council that it called a special meeting to address the problem. A reporter from the Daily Local News was sent to cover the public meeting, which degenerated so quickly that the council was forced to adjourn after only three minutes.

The combative Glenn marched over to the reporter when the meeting adjourned and unloaded on Norton and Wolfe, calling them "criminals," "draft dodgers" and "child molesters," among other things. The reporter included Glenn's insults as well as responses from Norton and Wolfe in a next-day story headlined "Slurs, insults drag town into controversy."

The citizens of Parkesburg had a right and a need to know how ugly and dysfunctional their elected governing body had become. The only way they were going to find out was through accurate, truthful reporting.

In fact, the trial jury agreed when it dismissed the libel complaint against the newspaper after being briefed by the trial judge on the concept of "neutral reporting privilege." Though it's officially recognized in only a few states, neutral reporting privilege is a straightforward, common-sense doctrine that allows news media to report an acknowledged public figure's defamatory remarks about another pubic figure without liability, providing the comments are reported accurately and neutrally.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never recognized such a First Amendment protection for the news media, and by declining to hear the Pennsylvania case, it effectively signaled that it has no intention of doing so. That's a disservice to the public's right to information they need to make fundamental democratic decisions, such as who will represent them in local, state and national government.

The law provides ample opportunity for public officials who are slandered by their opponents to sue them for defamation. What's at stake here is a crucial component of the news media's ability to report to citizens what public figures say about each other, particularly in contentious circumstances.

Whether it's coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or an out-of-control town council, accurate, neutral presentation of the facts ought to be protected, even when those facts include false and defamatory charges leveled by one public official against another.