And YES, defamation in the way of libel CAN come from an op-ed just as much as from a ‘news’ story because as you said, these op-ed writers consider themselves journalists, when in fact, they are nothing more than Ann Landers offering her advice on any given topic or person. They still can be held accountable if what they write something they claim as fact, happens to be a lie.
Sure, defamation can be found in an op-ed piece. I didn’t say it couldn’t. I said the opinions aren’t necessarily libelous, no matter how uncivil or objectionable, as long as the central facts aren’t false.
From there, though, we must agree to disagree.
I think the malice standard upheld in Sullivan, while imperfect, is the best possible standard to have, precisely because it places burden of proof on the accuser, thus discouraging frivolous lawsuits of the type that Trump likes to file. At the same time Sullivan holds the press to a very basic standard of integrity. They simply can not print lies, and the fact is, the mainstream media rarely do, precisely because they don’t like to get sued.
Even if they win, it’s still expensive, and their credibility is damaged.
Removing that standard set by Sullivan leaves us with no standard at all except the assumption that the accuser is telling the truth when he accuses the defendant of printing lies.
That is a very dangerous assumption, particularly when the accuser is the government. So if we are to assume, let’s assume the government is more likely to lie, not the press.
I thought the problem was that the press is too cozy with the democrat administration? That the press fails to be critical enough? But even the biased, liberal media has told us about a multitude of transgressions of the Clintons and Obamas, and have not backed down under Obama’s and Holder’s harassment.
Do you not understand that “opening up” the libel laws as Trump suggests, effectively guarantees that the press must be even more cozy with the government in order to survive? That Trump wants to handpick reporters and pre-approve questions?
Trump really is all about Trump and his own perceived right to slime anyone who challenges him. He’s not standing up for anyone else’s Constitutional rights. He’s peeved that he lost a previous libel suit against a guy who wrote a book about him; he’s peeved he had to back off his threat to sue Cruz, and he wants to get even with everyone.
Trump actually benefits from the Sullivan ruling. Without it Ben Carson could have dragged Trump and several media outlets into court for calling him a “pathological personality” and comparing him to a child molester.
Under Sullivan, the burden of proof would have been on Ben Carson.
Thus, Trump benefits from Sullivan. Trump’s first amendment right to be an asshole, as well as the media’s right to report that he is an asshole, remains intact.