Experts say ruling could undermine the ‘actual malice’ standard and make publishers more wary of critical reporting

A $300,000 jury verdict won recently by a Louisiana supreme court justice who sued the Advocate, the state’s largest newspaper, for libel over an editorial has caused concern among some US press freedom advocates.

One said the decision demonstrated a misunderstanding of a key legal principle governing such cases. And another worries the verdict could have a chilling effect on the media industry’s efforts to report on powerful people and institutions.

George Freeman, the Media Law Resource Center’s executive director, and Seth Stern, the chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, shared those thoughts after the 24 August conclusion of a complex, days-long civil trial pitting Louisiana supreme court justice Jefferson Davis Hughes III against the state’s Advocate newspaper.