Posted on 02/19/2019 10:21:17 AM PST by SMGFan
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for reconsideration of a landmark First Amendment precedent, criticizing the 1964 decision that the Constitution creates a higher barrier for public figures to claim libel.
Thomas wrote alongside a court decision not to take up the case of a woman who accused Bill Cosby of sexual misconduct in 2014. He suggested that the seminal case New York Times v. Sullivan, holding that public figures have a higher burden to prove libel, was wrongly decided.
"New York Times and the Court's decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law," Thomas wrote.
"If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we," the opinion states.
He continued, saying "We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified. The States are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm. We should reconsider our jurisprudence in this area."
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
brilliant!!!
So I guess He does not think that you should even be able to criticize people running for office?
and timely
This is the defense the major media have for sliming Trump at every opportunity, with impunity.
This is how they can get away with it
It SHOULD BE illegal for media to lie about someone- especially when it ruins their lives.
Especially when they know it is a lie, but report it anyway, but claim ‘they had no malicious intent’ (how do you prove a thought crime)
Media should have a HIGHER standard, not a lower one.
You missed the point completely - it is the opposite of what you are thinking.
The Warren Court decided that there was no equal protection under the law.
You could still criticize them. But may you couldn’t lie about them....
Times v. Sullivan went too far, has led to much abuse...
(as we can see in our public square today)
I wonder if the SCt could fix it, it will take either some very fine tuning (something the SCt is notoriously poor at, such as Roe v. Wade)...
or else, just dropping the SCt’s innovation about public figures having less protection against libel, than anybody else
we will see...
Let the facts you have support your criticism. The harsher the criticism, the more damning your facts should be.
I love me some Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas!!
I’ve ALWAYS loved Justice Thomas. And he has NEVER betrayed us, his principles or the US Constitution.
criticism is not defamation.
i do not like his socialism is different than that rat bastard is a socialist...
thomas is right.
Normally only the deity gets the capitalized pronoun, but you’ve got it backwards.
No, he thinks lying about public figures should not be protected as it is since 1964.
As usual, Justice Thomas is right on the money. You might agree that it’s a great idea to have a different libel standard for public figures than private individuals. That’s fine, but don’t mistake a policy preference with something that the Constitution requires. There’s no language in the Constitutional that requires bifurcating libel laws depending on whether the plaintiff is public or private. in fact, the equal protection clause would suggest that libel laws should be applied in an evenhanded way without reference to the plaintiff’s fame.
Legitimate criticism and opinion isn’t and has never been libel. New York Times v. Sullivan didn’t change anything there.
The media have gone off the rails, and they have been hiding behind New York Times v. Sullivan in order to make up lies (they have actual malice, it just can’t be proven) and carry the Democrat’s water for them.
New York Times v. Sullivan should be overturned. It was bad law then, and it created the media that we have today.
There is a difference between criticizing and made up slander.
The ‘64 ruling gave anyone the right to slander politicians.
He’s right. It’s not right that if you are a so-called “public figure” which apparently means anyone who isn’t totally anonymous, the anyone can make up any scurrilous accusation about you and get away with smearing you and your reputation sans consequences under the protection of the courts. It doesn’t seem like equal protection under the law to me.
Do you know how many people here on FR could end up being sued every time they repeated some criticism about some politician or other public figure.
But it is often necessary to repeat such information in order to start the debate on proving or disproving the information. When people fear starting a discussion then there will be no search for the truth.
Most people are smart enough to know that Allegations against politicians are a dime a dozen, and need to be proved before taken seriously.
Now if you can prove that allegation was made while the perpetrator knew it was false. Then that might be different.
It is not just the media that hides behind Sullivan. Internet discussion boards also have protection.
If public figures can sue the media for libel, can they also sue commenters on political discussion boards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.