The Narco News Bulletin and journalist Al Giordano, publisher of
the site, were cleared by Judge Paula J. Onansky who acknowledged
the right of web sites to receive the same protections afforded to
national newspapers.
In 1964, a Supreme Court ruling in favour of the New York Times
gave journalists broad freedom of speech protection in the US. It
provides that the media can only be sued for libel if malice or
reckless disregard for the truth can be shown. It is not sufficient
in the US to show that the facts are merely false – it must also be
shown that they were intended to injure. In this case, the bank
failed to show intent to injure.
In the UK, any disparaging statement made by one person about
another, which is communicated or “published,” may well be a
defamatory statement and can give rise to an action for either
libel or slander. The UK media does not enjoy quite the same level
of protection afforded to its US counterparts. It has a slightly
narrower defence of "qualified privilege" if reporting
"responsibly" on a matter of public interest.
Another writer of some of the articles which appeared on the
site, Mario Renato Menéndez-Rodriguez, was also sued in the case.
The case against Menéndez-Rodriguez was dismissed due to lack of
jurisdiction.
The Mexican bank, also known as Banamex and now part of Citigroup,
had sued on the grounds that its fiscal stability and reputation
were damaged by the allegations against its president. However, it
had already lost three similar actions against Menéndez-Rodriguez
when it sued him in Mexico.
The bank took its case to New York on the basis that people
could read the material in New York and the ISP which hosted the
site was based in New York, although its servers were in
Maryland.
At an earlier stage of the case, the US Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) told the court that the bank was guilty of
“abusive forum shopping” by suing in New York. The judge did not
need to address this issue in her ruling last week, finding it
sufficient to dismiss the case on the free-speech argument.
The EFF said of the judgment: "We're pleased that the court
flatly rejected attempts to treat internet reporters differently
than reporters in the real world."
