In a post about a fairly pedestrian New Jersey case in which the Supreme Court held that a statute creating a private cause of action for disorderly conduct for the offense of revealing an expunged arrest against a local paper that refused to remove a published report when, months later, the arrest was expunged, Eugene Volokh concludes with a quite stunning proposition.
I should add that I think that there’s some room in libel law for requirements that a site on which an arrest report is posted should also report that the arrestee was exonerated, if the site is informed of that, or else face liability for reporting what is now a half-truth. (See this article and this one.) But even if courts were to accept that libel theory, that can’t justify a statute such as New Jersey’s, which purports to categorically forbids revealing the existing of an expunged arrest even when the publication reports on the expungement as well.
Can a “truth” be turned into a “half truth” after the fact? Does it create a duty, after the fact, to revisit the publication to correct, modify, alter what was written to reflect what happened subsequently? Continue reading
