Woody didn't drop it; the Court dismissed it:
[FONT="] CONCLUSION The Colorado Supreme Court has noted that [p]rotecting the important competing interests of free speech and reputation requires a flexible approach anchored in the context of each cause of action. Burns, supra, 659 P.2d at 1360. This balancing act is especially precarious given the high stakes involved. Compare the obvious primacy the Constitution and the interpreting case law places on free speech with the importance, of indeed Shakespearean proportions, accorded ones reputation: Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; tis something, nothing; twas mine, tis his, and has been slave to thousands; but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed. William Shakespeare, Othello, Act III, scene iii. Factored into this flexible approach when considering a motion for summary dismissal is the recognition that the threat 14 [/FONT][FONT="]of protracted litigation in defamation cases could have a chilling effect upon constitutionally protected rights of free speech. See Lockett v. Garrett, 1 P.3d 206, 210 (Colo. 1999). Because of the respect accorded expression in matters of public concern under the First Amendment, in this type of case the existence of a material fact must be established with convincing clarity. Gordon, supra, 99 P.3d at 78. Plaintiffs did not establish any such material fact here. These constitutional protections are not just for broadcast media. Indeed, free speech itself acts as a check on the media. For example, in our current technologicallyadvanced era anyone can get on the internet, become a self-proclaimed journalist or pundit and draw a worldwide audience. Webloggers can in a matter of hours point out key errors in reporting by mainstream media outlets. When people have the means and expertise to generally publish fair and perhaps insightful comments quickly and easily on matters of public concern, such as what a crime scene reveals or does not reveal, law enforcement and the rest of us may benefit. The robust protections guaranteed by the First Amendment thus remain as important and valuable as ever. Plaintiffs may well have filed this case more for vindication than for money, and perhaps vindication is what they deserve. But they have a better chance for meaningful vindication in the court of public opinion through vigorous debate about the background and details of this heinous crime than by suing those whose reporting may arguably include some less than favorable inferences about them. Plaintiffs cannot have the public discourse playing field entirely to themselves. Of course, those who broadcast publicly must accept some responsibilities of basic decency towards others as embodied in our Nations defamation laws. 15 [/FONT]
[FONT="]Fox News, however, did not shirk those responsibilities here. While the December 2002 broadcast appears to plaintiffs not to have been fair and balanced towards them, it was not defamatory. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. DATED: January 6 th, 2005. BY THE COURT:[/FONT]
[FONT="]Phillip S. Figa United States District Judge[/FONT]
It irritates and entertains my siblings to no end.