Members of the Alabama Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in Montgomery in a defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit brought by former Alabama basketball walk-on Kai Spears against the New York Times.
According to court documents, the lawsuit was filed by Spears in May 2023 after Billy Witz, a New York Times reporter, falsely identified Spears at the scene of the murder of Jamea Harris in January 2023 in Tuscaloosa. Former Alabama basketball player Darius Miles has been charged with capital murder and has pleaded not guilty. He is still awaiting trial. The shooting received national media attention due to multiple Alabama basketball players allegedly being present at the scene of the crime.
Shortly after Spears filed a lawsuit against the newspaper, the New York Times acknowledged that its original article claiming Spears was at the crime scene was incorrect.
The two questions the court will hear arguments about on Wednesday involve Alabama’s Shield Statute and whether it bars a court from ordering the disclosure of the confidential sources who Witz used for his story. The statute generally protects reporters from revealing confidential sources or information in court proceedings. The court will consider whether these protections extend to online articles.
John Thompson, an attorney representing the New York Times, said, “However, as discussed more fully below, whether publishing on paper or on the internet, a newspaper continues to have the same readily recognizable form and function: an organization employing professional journalists bringing regular updates to readers on current events and other general-interest topics in their communities and beyond. And, accordingly, the Shield Statute’s protections should continue to apply to such publications.”
“The underlying litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama is a defamation case arising from an article that was published in The Times online and, the next day, in print. The article relied, in part, on two confidential sources. After the District Court granted in part and denied in part The Times’s motion to dismiss, the parties entered discovery,” Thompson said in a filing in July. “The Times has invoked the Shield Statute to guard against the disclosure of information that would identify its two confidential sources. In connection with that dispute, the District Court certified two questions to this Court, asking (1) whether the Shield Statute applies to newspapers that are also published online, and (2) if so, whether the Shield Statute protects against the disclosure not only of the source’s name, but also other information that would lead to identification of the source. The Times submits that the answer to both certified questions is yes: The plain meaning of 'any newspaper' in the Shield Statute includes newspapers published online and the plain meaning of 'source' includes source-identifying information. Any other result would be inconsistent with the text and purpose of the statute and would fatally undermine its protections for the press and public.”
R. Matt Glover, an attorney representing Spears, maintains the Shield Statute doesn’t preclude discovery of the identity of one of Witz’s sources in discovery.
“The Northern District of Alabama has asked this Court to answer two questions regarding the scope of Alabama’s reporter’s shield statute. The first, “Is the identity of a source, whose information is published online by a corporation that also publishes a newspaper, protected from compelled disclosure by a court,” should be answered “no.” First, the statute does not apply generally to online articles. As the Court in Price v. Time, Inc., 416 F.3d 1327, 1342 (11th Cir. 2005) noted in finding that a magazine is not a “newspaper” within the meaning of §12-21-142, the statute should be construed strictly and narrowly under Alabama law since it is in derogation of common law,” Spears said in a filing with the Alabama Supreme Court in August. “Furthermore, the Alabama Legislature has demonstrated that it knows how to expand the scope of the shield statute to new forms of media. It amended the statute in 1949 to include radio and television broadcasts. The Legislature has not further amended the statute to apply to online publications, and this Court should decline The Times’ invitation to amend the statute by judicial fiat. Nor does the fact that The Times “also publishes a newspaper” extend the protections of the statute to all of its online publications. The statute still additionally requires that the information in question be “published in the newspaper” for its protections to apply. Therefore, the answer to the question, as framed, is no. The second question is whether Alabama’s shield statute protects 'any and all information that could lead to the identification of a source whose identity is protected from compelled disclosure under' the statute. It does not. In addressing this question, it is important to note that Spears is not seeking information that is facially source-identifying, nor is he seeking information for the purpose of trying to deduce the identity of Source A. Spears is simply seeking the information necessary to prove the elements of his claims. The Times has attempted to use an overly broad reading of Alabama’s shield statute to deny Spears information necessary to evaluate the reliability of Source A and the information provided, or to evaluate the adequacy of The Times’ investigation into the accuracy of the information. The information sought is relevant to whether The Times was negligent or even reckless in relying on the false information in printing the defamatory story.”
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email [email protected].
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
