fair report privilege in Connecticut

2024Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co., 216 Conn. App. 851 , 862 n.11, 287 A.3d 177 (2022). 14 In response to a motion for articulation filed by the plaintiff pending appeal, the trial court explained that ‘‘it did not reach the plaintiff’s allega- tions of malice, recklessness, motive, or intent in rendering its decision on summary judgment.’’ The court further stated: ‘‘The fair report privilege applies even assuming, arguendo, [that] the plaintiff could prove those allega- tions. ‘The privilege exists even though the publisher himself does not believe the defamatory words he reports to be true, and

2024Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co., 216 Conn. App. 851 , 862 n.11, 287 A.3d 177 (2022). 14 In response to a motion for articulation filed by the plaintiff pending appeal, the trial court explained that ‘‘it did not reach the plaintiff’s allega- tions of malice, recklessness, motive, or intent in rendering its decision on summary judgment.’’ The court further stated: ‘‘The fair report privilege applies even assuming, arguendo, [that] the plaintiff could prove those allega- tions. ‘The privilege exists even though the publisher himself does not believe the defamatory words he reports to be true, and

2024Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co., 216 Conn. App. 851 , 862 n.11, 287 A.3d 177 (2022). 14 In response to a motion for articulation filed by the plaintiff pending appeal, the trial court explained that ‘‘it did not reach the plaintiff’s allega- tions of malice, recklessness, motive, or intent in rendering its decision on summary judgment.’’ The court further stated: ‘‘The fair report privilege applies even assuming, arguendo, [that] the plaintiff could prove those allega- tions. ‘The privilege exists even though the publisher himself does not believe the defamatory words he reports to be true, and

2024Relying on the decision of the Appellate Court in Burton v. American Lawyer Media, Inc., 83 Conn. App. 134 , 847 A.2d 1115 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 914 , 853 A.2d 526 (2004), the plaintiff appears to have proceeded on the theory that the fair report privilege will be defeated if the defendant acted with what the plaintiff calls ‘‘actual malice,’’ by which he appears to mean malice in fact.13 In other words, his main purpose in referencing the photograph in his briefing to the trial court was to immunize his five defamation claims 13 It is unclear to what extent the plaintiff’s frequent refere

2024Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co., 216 Conn. App. 851 , 862 n.11, 287 A.3d 177 (2022). 14 In response to a motion for articulation filed by the plaintiff pending appeal, the trial court explained that ‘‘it did not reach the plaintiff’s allega- tions of malice, recklessness, motive, or intent in rendering its decision on summary judgment.’’ The court further stated: ‘‘The fair report privilege applies even assuming, arguendo, [that] the plaintiff could prove those allega- tions. ‘The privilege exists even though the publisher himself does not believe the defamatory words he reports to be true, and

2024Relying on the decision of the Appellate Court in Burton v. American Lawyer Media, Inc., 83 Conn. App. 134 , 847 A.2d 1115 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 914 , 853 A.2d 526 (2004), the plaintiff appears to have proceeded on the theory that the fair report privilege will be defeated if the defendant acted with what the plaintiff calls ‘‘actual malice,’’ by which he appears to mean malice in fact.13 In other words, his main purpose in referencing the photograph in his briefing to the trial court was to immunize his five defamation claims 13 It is unclear to what extent the plaintiff’s frequent refere

2024Moreover, the case that American Lawyer Media, Inc. cited for the proposition, Bleich v. Ortiz, 196 Conn. 498, 504 , 493 A.2d 236 (1985), spoke generally of conditional privileges but did not say that fair reporting is a conditional privilege; indeed, there is no mention of the fair report privilege in that opinion.

2024Moreover, the case that American Lawyer Media, Inc. cited for the proposition, Bleich v. Ortiz, 196 Conn. 498, 504 , 493 A.2d 236 (1985), spoke generally of conditional privileges but did not say that fair reporting is a conditional privilege; indeed, there is no mention of the fair report privilege in that opinion.

2024As we discuss in this part of the opinion, if a statement is true, or if it is protected by the fair report privilege, then it is protected speech, and neither the defendant’s attitude toward its truth (the actual malice question) nor the defendant’s attitude toward the plaintiff (the malice in fact question) is legally relevant. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 23 0 Conn. 1 ,0 25 Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co. yer Media, Inc., and explaining that malice does not defeat fair report privilege); Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, Inc., 201 N.J. 500, 530 , 993 A.2d 778 (2010) (‘‘[u]nder [the]

2024As we discuss in this part of the opinion, if a statement is true, or if it is protected by the fair report privilege, then it is protected speech, and neither the defendant’s attitude toward its truth (the actual malice question) nor the defendant’s attitude toward the plaintiff (the malice in fact question) is legally relevant. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 23 0 Conn. 1 ,0 25 Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co. yer Media, Inc., and explaining that malice does not defeat fair report privilege); Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, Inc., 201 N.J. 500, 530 , 993 A.2d 778 (2010) (‘‘[u]nder [the]

2024As we discuss in this part of the opinion, if a statement is true, or if it is protected by the fair report privilege, then it is protected speech, and neither the defendant’s attitude toward its truth (the actual malice question) nor the defendant’s attitude toward the plaintiff (the malice in fact question) is legally relevant. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 23 0 Conn. 1 ,0 25 Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co. yer Media, Inc., and explaining that malice does not defeat fair report privilege); Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, Inc., 201 N.J. 500, 530 , 993 A.2d 778 (2010) (‘‘[u]nder [the]

2024See, e.g., Elder v. 21st Century Media Newspaper, LLC, 204 Conn. App. 414, 428 , 254 A.3d 344 (2021) (clarifying American Law- yer Media, Inc., and explaining that malice does not defeat fair report privilege); Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, Inc., 201 N.J. 500, 530 , 993 A.2d 778 (2010) (‘‘[u]nder [the] modern trend of the law, the accurate reporting of [official] proceedings results in complete immunity, regardless of the knowledge or motive of the publisher’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1200 , 131 S. Ct. 1045 , 178 L.

2024As we discuss in this part of the opinion, if a statement is true, or if it is protected by the fair report privilege, then it is protected speech, and neither the defendant’s attitude toward its truth (the actual malice question) nor the defendant’s attitude toward the plaintiff (the malice in fact question) is legally relevant. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 23 0 Conn. 1 ,0 25 Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co. yer Media, Inc., and explaining that malice does not defeat fair report privilege); Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, Inc., 201 N.J. 500, 530 , 993 A.2d 778 (2010) (‘‘[u]nder [the]

2024As we discuss in this part of the opinion, if a statement is true, or if it is protected by the fair report privilege, then it is protected speech, and neither the defendant’s attitude toward its truth (the actual malice question) nor the defendant’s attitude toward the plaintiff (the malice in fact question) is legally relevant. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 23 0 Conn. 1 ,0 25 Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co. yer Media, Inc., and explaining that malice does not defeat fair report privilege); Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, Inc., 201 N.J. 500, 530 , 993 A.2d 778 (2010) (‘‘[u]nder [the]

2026Following oral argument before this court, we, sua sponte, ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing “whether the dismissal of the portion of the plaintiff’s claims pertaining to the defendants’ republishing of the proposed amicus brief may be affirmed on the alternative ground that the republishing of the brief was protected by the litiga- tion privilege.”15 In that order, we directed the parties’ attention to Kelley v. Bonney, supra, 221 Conn. 549 , in which our Supreme Court held that “[p]ublication to the media of material that the media was independently “that there is li

2026See Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123 , 161, 84 A.3d 840 (2014) (“the reviewing court not only can but must address an issue implicating subject matter jurisdic- tion whenever it arises, regardless of how the issue comes to the court’s attention”); Kloiber v. Jellen, 207 Conn. App. 616, 621 , 263 A.3d 952 (2021) (addressing issue of whether plaintiff had standing to maintain action after ordering parties to file supplemental briefs because “a ques- tion of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including sua sponte invocati

2024Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co., 216 Conn. App. 851 , 862 n.11, 287 A.3d 177 (2022). 14 In response to a motion for articulation filed by the plaintiff pending appeal, the trial court explained that ‘‘it did not reach the plaintiff’s allega- tions of malice, recklessness, motive, or intent in rendering its decision on summary judgment.’’ The court further stated: ‘‘The fair report privilege applies even assuming, arguendo, [that] the plaintiff could prove those allega- tions. ‘The privilege exists even though the publisher himself does not believe the defamatory words he reports to be true, and

2022State v. Lester, 324 Conn. 519 , 526–27, 153 A.3d 647 (2017) (claim is moot where appellant fails to challenge basis of trial court’s adverse ruling).

2022State v. Lester, 324 Conn. 519 , 526–27, 153 A.3d 647 (2017) (claim is moot where appellant fails to challenge basis of trial court’s adverse ruling).

2021The defendants argue that the court correctly concluded that any claims regarding the 2017 publication are barred both by claim preclusion and issue preclusion because the claims could have been raised in the prior litigation and because the resolution of the issue of whether the publi- cation of the 2015 articles was protected by the fair report privilege applies to the virtually identical 2017 publication.4 ‘‘Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the parties or those in priv- ity with them, upon t

2021The defendants argue that the court correctly concluded that any claims regarding the 2017 publication are barred both by claim preclusion and issue preclusion because the claims could have been raised in the prior litigation and because the resolution of the issue of whether the publi- cation of the 2015 articles was protected by the fair report privilege applies to the virtually identical 2017 publication.4 ‘‘Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the parties or those in priv- ity with them, upon t

2002Reuber v. Food chemical News, Inc ., 925 F.2d 703 , 712 (1991).