Question to ELA or Sam - both being attorney's.Would McMurphy be libel if he accepted information if Zach Smiths Amazon account was hacked,those invoice copies? - just curious
I'm surprised I haven't seen the Pentagon Papers thrown out there incorrectly yet.
Most publications have internal ethics rules that use a sliding scale when it comes to that, but it's generally not based on legal obligations. Here, I would think the initial text messages (which are not at issue, but lets pretend) would be more likely to get through than the subsequent salacious but less relevant stuff. The issue is McMurphy is self-publishing for lack of a better word, so that's not really an issue.
Legally? Generally it's a three part test, but courts have gone very narrow and very wide on it. 1. Outlet played no role in the illegal gathering; 2. the means by which they obtained the info was legal; and 3. the level of public concern regarding the information. I think #3 is the biggest issue to overcome any 1st amendment challenge made by McMurphy. Again, had it been the initial texts, stronger case. The case is what Meyer knew, not how much of a jag Smith was. The other issue, is how much of the public concern are sports period? As important as the Meyer angle is, in the grand scheme of things we are talking about the eomployment status of someone in the entertainment industry. I think when that person is (I assume) also the highest paid state employee, that makes it part of the public concern. I imagine any argument made by McMurphy across any of this is Meyer's status as the highest paid state employee, makes all of this a matter of high public concern.
A guy Ohioans know well, may be the best test case, John Boehner. There a Democratic rival secretly and unlawfully taped Boehner speaking about ethics violations of Newt Gingrich, then leaked them to the press. The media had no involvement in creating the tapes, nor was there acquisition of them from McDermott illegal, but they knew from the material presented that it not been obtained lawfully. The ruling was that it was a crime committed by McDermott in making the tapes, but no liability on the media for releasing them, even though they knew they were unlawfully obtained.