The state supreme court ruled against the Herald Monday, upholding a $2 million verdict saying that the paper is guilty of libel against a Superior Court judge.

Reporter David Wedge accused Judge Ernest Murphy of saying a 14-year-old rape victim should "get over it" in 2002. Murphy declared that he said no such thing and said the statement destroyed his reputation, so he sued. A jury found Wedge guilty in 2005, and the Herald appealed. $2 million is a lot of money!

But the SJC opinion was unanimous, and Justice John M. Greaney wrote, "The press . . . is not free to publish false information about anyone (even a judge whose sentencing decisions have incurred the wrath of the local district attorney), intending that it will cause a public furor, while knowing, or in reckless disregard of, its falsity."

Wedge and the Herald took even more hits from the opinion: "Neither Wedge, nor any other Herald employee who testified at trial, could name one person at the Herald who either edited, or checked for accuracy of, the content of Wedge's article."

The settlement is absolutely huge, and we were wondering what this means for the Herald in the long term? $2 million is a lot of money.

Gawker tried to sort through this messy, ugly case. and consulted David Lat of Above the Law, who said: "The technical term for that is a whopping bench-slap…. Which is why news organizations maybe don't have to be TOO worried, since a lot of this is fact-specific to Wedge (the reporter) and the Herald. But, on the other hand, bloggers -- who don't exactly have formal "fact-checking" processes in place -- should take note of that."

So the overall message to anyone interested in The News is to cover your butt. We wonder if that $2 million payout will turn the Herald into a more timid version of itself.