Mr. Miller should get his back pay and consider a malicious prosecution case, perhaps harassment against the newspaper. Even though what they were reporting may have technically been "true" at the time, not sure the First Amendment protects reporting that clearly was biased and not in good faith. He certainly has damages. This poor family. No good deed goes unpunished.
Mr. Miller should get his back pay and consider a malicious prosecution case, perhaps harassment against the newspaper. Even though what they were reporting may have technically been "true" at the time, not sure the First Amendment protects reporting that clearly was biased and not in good faith. He certainly has damages. This poor family. No good deed goes unpunished.
Mr. Miller should get his back pay and consider a malicious prosecution case, perhaps harassment against the newspaper. Even though what they were reporting may have technically been "true" at the time, not sure the First Amendment protects reporting that clearly was biased and not in good faith. He certainly has damages. This poor family. No good deed goes unpunished.