[morselicious]

After witing a anonymous letter to the editor about some common knowledge information concerning a mayoral canidate I asked for my letter to be anonymous. The newspaper asked for my name and telephone number on my envelope but promised not to publish the
Name and number from my envelope. What they did, was give my letter and envelope directly to the canidate and now this man knows I wrote it. What recourse do I have against the newspaper? Were my rights were violated?

[JudyKayTee]

I don't understand your concern if this was common knowledge.

I don't believe you have any recourse against the newspaper unless the newspaper has made false allegations about you - which does not appear to be the case.

The newspaper in my City has a "blurb" in the paper about not guaranteeing anonymity of people who ask that letters be published. They do the best they can but are subject to subpoena, etc.

You could always consult with an Attorney but you can only sue for monetary damages and I don't see any here.

[AK lawyer]

I suppose the paper is in breach of what is arguably a contract to keep your name private. But, as JKT has said, damages are questionable.

[JudyKayTee]

I suppose the paper is in breach of what is arguably a contract to keep your name private. But, as JKT has said, damages are questionable.

Do you have a thought on what was published being common knowledge?

[AK lawyer]

Do you have a thought on what was published being common knowledge?

"Common knowledge" implies truth (or at any rate lack of "malice" if untrue). That would be a defense to a libel charge. But I don't think that's the issue; it doesn't appear the OP is worried about the politician suing.

[excon]

Hello m:

A newspapers stock in trade is their sources. If word got out that the newspaper doesn't protect its sources, it could go bust.

I'd do my BEST to make sure that word got out.

excon

[JudyKayTee]

"Common knowledge" implies truth (or at any rate lack of "malice" if untrue). That would be a defense to a libel charge. But I don't think that's the issue; it doesn't appear the OP is worried about the politician suing.

I agree - I just wonder if there's a different standard for the newspaper if whatever was written and published is common knowledge as opposed to, say, some previously unknown criminal activity.

[excon]

Hello Judy:

Well, you didn't ask me, but I have an opinion, of course.

If my newspaper printed a story about me that was untrue, and they used "it was common knowledge" as their defense, I'll bet I'd be awarded a lot of money.

A newspaper is supposed to investigate "common knowledge", to filter out the trash from the truth, and then only print the truth. If they don't they should be sued, and sued often.

excon

[AK lawyer]

I agree - I just wonder if there's a different standard for the newspaper if whatever was written and published is common knowledge as opposed to, say, some previously unknown criminal activity.

So, we are wandering into hypothetical-land for a while? :)

In comparing "common knowledge" vs. "previously unknown criminal activity" the important thing is that both are (for the purpose of your hypothetical) true. And truth is a defense to a defamation suit.

If my newspaper printed a story about me that was untrue, and they used "it was common knowledge" as their defense, I'll bet I'd be awarded a lot of money.

Not necessarily. If you are a public figure, you would have to prove malice. As I recall, that equates to reckless disregard for whether it is true or not.

[JudyKayTee]

Yes, I think at least I am wandering into "what if" land. Certainly malice comes into play here. My thought with the info is that if it's public knowledge to begin with, why is it a problem that the address of the OP was given to the politician?

And that's a question only the OP can answer.

Every now and then I do wander into never-never land. This is one of those times. Or what if land. Either or.

[JudyKayTee]

Hello m:

A newspapers stock in trade is their sources. If word got out that the newspaper doesn't protect its sources, it could go bust.

I'd do my BEST to make sure that word got out.

excon

I don't see that the info was untrue - or am I missing something?

[AK lawyer]

... Certainly malice comes into play here. My thought with the info is that if it's public knowledge to begin with, why is it a problem that the address of the OP was given to the politician?
...

Malice in this sense is not the same as ill-will. It has a very specific meaning; essentially (as I have suggested) supreme indifference to whether the allegations one is making are true or not.

The OP's problem is not a threat of a libel suit. If you tick off the mayor of a small town, in some parts of the country, I can imagine he can make life very difficult for you:

Overzealous police surveilance;
Dragging of feet when seeking permits;
Increased tax assessments;
etc.

The list of possibilities is endless. All of which would be a reason that the OP sought to be anonymous. Or the OP might simply have desired to avoid the notariety that may come with one's letter to the editor being puplished.