The judge commended the Chronicle for performing a needed public service.”

When judges get it right, it’s an occasion to rejoice.
An appeals court has ruled that what a Charleston newspaper printed wasn’t libel.
The case against the Charleston City Paper’s owner was about controversial celebrations by the Academic Magnet High School football team and the subsequent firing of its coach. 
Students and parents sued, saying the paper’s opinions were defamatory because they “imply that the football team and the head coach are racist.”
The paper had accused the coach and players of racist acts using chants and watermelons to make racist statements. 
Judge Jean Toal, a former SC Supreme Court chief justice, granted a motion for summary judgment by the newspaper’s attorneys 3 years ago.
 Judge Toal wrote the paper “presented a substantially accurate summary of the facts” from school district officials and the opinions expressed by the paper “are a fundamental example of the type of discourse protected by the 1st Amendment.” 
An appeal this year was to find if the circuit court should have ruled otherwise.
In the latest decision, the judges ruled that the paper expressed “opinion ... protected under the 1st Amendment” as fair comment under law.
The case isn’t over yet. 
The parents and students can request a rehearing. 
If denied, they can petition the SC Supreme Court.
It may come as no surprise that attorneys for the plaintiffs did not understand the law and what libel actually is. That happened to us when the Chronicle was sued 3 times for libel for our reporting and condemnation of Babcock Center neglect and abuse of vulnerable adults.
2 lawsuits were dropped when it became clear that we would not settle out of court.
The 3rd went to trial.
There Judge Edward Cottingham granted us a motion of summary judgment and declared that the Chronicle had performed a public service in exposing those guilty of abuse.
We were just doing our job.
– JerryBellune@ yahoo.com