In a recent defamation case filed against a Gannett-owned publication and the Associated Press, the Seventh Circuit Court rejected a unique interpretation of a well-known legal principle and instead preserved the doctrine known as the “single publication rule”.
The case presented an intriguing introduction of an unusual interpretation of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the principle which dictates when a cause of action for defamation begins to run. This legal principle plays a crucial role in lawsuits related to defamatory statements as it outlines the timeframe for initiating legal action.
The plaintiff’s proposal was to extend the period covered by the “single publication rule,” which stipulates that an actionable event of defamation occurs when the defamatory statement is first published. Under their proposal, the period of defamation would continue indefinitely each time the statement is “republished” on a different medium or platform, potentially leading to a never-ending chain of legal claims.
However, the Seventh Circuit court rejected this argument in favor of maintaining the well-established “single publication rule”. The rule originates from the Restatement (Second) of Torts which primarily upholds that the statute of limitations for defamation begins to run at the point the defamatory statement is originally published.
In doing this, the court maintained the balance between the protection of individuals’ reputations and the practicality of legal proceedings. By upholding the single publication rule, the court confirmed that an infinite regression of defamation claims, based on continuous ‘republishing’ of a statement, is not legally feasible.
The implications for legal professionals and corporations are significant. Any alterations to the “single publication rule” would have a profound effect on the conduct and potential liability of corporations that often find themselves involved in defamation cases, whether as plaintiffs or defendants. For now, with the preservation of this rule, the statute of limitations for initiating defamation claims remains clear and consistent as originally outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts.