As you probably know, the First Amendment limits the ability of someone to sue another for an allegedly false statement about them. A public figure gets the least amount of protection, with an author only being subject to suit if he made a statement damaging to reputation that he either knew was false or that he acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement.
Masson v New Yorker Magazine, a US supreme Court case, discusses this standard with regard to quotes. The court held that an author could not be sued for changing quotes unless the change materially changed the meaning of the quote. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1799.ZO.html
So the next time you hear an athlete or other figure claim he was misquoted, you might consider that he might feel he was misquoted because he did not say exactly what he was quoted as saying (even if what he was quoted as saying is substantively accurate).

freeman3 wrote:As you probably know, the First Amendment limits the ability of someone to sue another for an allegedly false statement about them. A public figure gets the least amount of protection, with an author only being subject to suit if he made a statement damaging to reputation that he either knew was false or that he acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement.
Masson v New Yorker Magazine, a US supreme Court case, discusses this standard with regard to quotes. The court held that an author could not be sued for changing quotes unless the change materially changed the meaning of the quote. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1799.ZO.html
So the next time you hear an athlete or other figure claim he was misquoted, you might consider that he might feel he was misquoted because he did not say exactly what he was quoted as saying (even if what he was quoted as saying is substantively accurate).

Of course, the Supreme Court was saying that as it overturned a lower court's decision in favour of the New Yorker to avoid a jury trial.

Do you have a particular athlete/other figure in mind in your last para?

I didn't really have anyone particular in mind. I just read something that it was common for journalists to alter quotes for stylistic, grammer and effect and this case was cited. I did not have anyone in mind but the book I was reading mentioned Roger Clemens complaining about being misquoted when he was in Boston and a Boston newspaper retaliated by quoting verbatim what Clemens said in post-game comments (because speech can be so fragmented and disjointed). I just thought it was interesting; I had thought rather naively that if you put something in quotes that it had to be exactly what the person said. Well, maybe not (and there is a Supreme Court case that gives license to the practice unless it effect a material change in meaning.)
By the way, with regard to the Supreme Court overturning the lower court, defendants had made
a summary judgment motion. Summary judgment should be denied if the plaintiff can show that there is a triable issue of material fact; if there are facts in dispute, and plaintiff's facts could constitute libel, then the case would go to a jury. (the Court said it drew all justifiable inferences in favor of plaintiff including issues of credibility and the weight to be afforded particular evidence) It s a review that is deferential towards plaintiff because the case is getting kicked out of court prior to jury if motion is successful and the justification is that even on the best reasonable interpretation of facts in favor of plaintiff, he still can not make a case for libel. Here, the Court found that plaintiff did pass that evidentiary hurdle, but of course a jury could still find for defendant at trial.