I believe we have totally different understandings of what I wrote. We are all on the same page minus OCF. As long as the ANews did NOT make up the story and quoted the Prosecutor (whether or not the prosecutor was correct in his words), then the paper has done nothing wrong. You are correct, their is a legal term "actual malice", but that is NOT what I meant in my wording. I meant simply that if the paper in good faith quoted a public figure on a statement that they then have NOT committed malice. If that was the case, any reporter who is printing Trump comments would be guilty of committing civil crimes daily ;-)

I don't know, do you still pay your taxes for funds that go to the prosecutor's office? Don't see you raising hell to them just yet.....

I can accept that said something other than what you meant, and in the process created a great deal of confusion. With that out of the way, it's almost time for fall camp.

Fact that the A-News hasn't changed their story tells me they have no concerns about libel - nor should they if they were given that information by the prosecutor. OCF's analysis aside, you have to knowingly publish false information with malicious intent. And as I recall in the movie, Sally Field's character was hardly a public figure, but that's another wrong element in OCF's argument anyway.

Your link is from The Post, not the Athens News. A-News still mentions theft.

You are correct. My apologies. Here is the correct link:
https://www.athensnews.com/news/campus/former-ou-athletic...

I guess we'll see if there are further legal developments. Since Bolon pled guilty to tampering with records, and not to theft, in a civil lawsuit, the News would not be able to rely on his plea to support their assertion that there was theft involved.

You're wrong about number 1, when the plaintiff is not a public figure.

Number two is debatable. My assertions here were based on the assumption that he would not be considered a public figure. From the beginning I've not stated that as a certainty but only my best guess. If it ever went to court, the first thing the A News lawyers would do would be to assert that he was a public figure to get out from underneath Ohio libel law. On this you and the paper's lawyers may, indeed, be correct.

Not if the person is not a public figure and state libel laws are germane. In those cases, the liability for a false statement is on the publication as well as on the person making the false statement, if not otherwise protected by privilege. In the vast majority of cases that get any publicity at all, of course, the person is a public figure so what you say is true, but you can't make a blanket statement that it is always true.

For the situation where the paper accurately reports an incorrect statement, I found the following summary of the "Fair Reporting Privilege" online:
[quote=hbklaw.com]The Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 611, provides as follows: "The publication of defamatory matter concerning another in a report of an official action or proceeding * * * is privileged if the report is accurate and complete or a fair abridgement of the occurrence reported."

This section of the Restatement was adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court in Catalano v. Pechous, 83 Ill.2d 146, 419 N.E.2d 350, 50 Ill.Dec.242 (1980).

Although the literal language of the Restatement limits the privilege to reports of "proceedings," it has been extended to the statements of law enforcement officials in their official capacities.

Under this privilege, the news media may reprint defamatory information reported by another in the context of public records or proceedings. The privilege protects news accounts based on the written and verbal statements of governmental agencies and officials made in their official capacities. Myers v. The Telegraph, 332 Ill.App.3d 917, 773 N.E.2d 192, 265 Ill.Dec. 830 (5th Dist. 2002)

For the privilege to apply, the news media is obligated to summarize the defamatory matter in a fair and accurate manner. The accuracy of the summary, not the truth or falsity of the information being summarized, determines whether the privilege applies. Myers, supra. A plaintiff can defeat this affirmative defense of reporting privilege if he can show that the defamatory matter does not appear in the official record or proceedings. Myers, supra. In the case where an official has made oral statements, a plaintiff may get his case to trial by showing that the report did not accurately summarize the statement of the official. Maple Lanes, Inc. v. News Media Corporation, 322 Ill.App.3d 842, 751 N.E.2d 177, 256 Ill.Dec.124 (2nd Dist. 2001).[/OUTER_QUOTE]

"Private figure plaintiffs: Edwards v. National Audubon involved an instance where the person defamed (the plaintiff) was a nationally known scientist, a prominent public figure. In cases where the plaintiff is a private person, courts have split over whether to recognize the neutral reportage privilege. See, e.g., Khawar v. Globe International, 19 Cal. 4th 254, 271 (Cal. 1998) (plaintiff was a youth accused of involvement in the Robert Kennedy assassination). The trend, however, seems to be for courts to recognize the privilege even when private figure plaintiffs are involved."

Source:
http://www.dmlp.org/book/export/html/1820

What he pled guilty to was tampering with records. At this point, it doesn't matter anymore if he actually took money because the Athens News says that the prosecutor said he did, and that makes it the "truth" for most people. Since he didn't prove his innocence in court, he is presumed to be guilty.

Dude, are you trying to take Monroe's title of beating a dead horse and being wrong while you do it?