§ 73.060.Scope of Protection

A provision about who benefits from a correction, and it draws a sharp line.

A timely and sufficient correction, clarification, or retraction made by a person responsible for a publication constitutes a correction by all persons responsible for that publication — but does not extend to an entity that republished the information.

The first half is a practical necessity. A single article involves a reporter, an editor, a publisher, and often a parent company. Requiring each of them to issue their own correction would produce a series of identical statements and no additional benefit to anyone.

So one correction, properly made, protects everyone responsible for the original.

The second half is the significant limit, and it matters most in an environment where content spreads by being repeated. A wire service correcting its own story does nothing for the hundred outlets that carried it, each of which is a republisher and must correct for itself.

The rationale is that a correction only works where it reaches the audience that saw the falsehood. A retraction in the original outlet does not reach the readers of the outlets that picked it up, so the protection cannot sensibly follow the content downstream.

The practical consequence for a republisher is that it must monitor and act for itself. Relying on the original publisher’s correction leaves it exposed, and the exposure is to a claim in which the correction machinery has not been engaged at all.

Note the word "entity" in the second half, against "persons" in the first — the distinction being between those responsible for a single publication and a separate organisation that published it again.

What makes a correction timely and sufficient comes from the preceding provision, and its effect on damages from the one after.