Overturning New York Times v. Sullivan

American Thinker ^ | 20 Jun, 2024 | Charlie Rose

[MtnClimber]

In 2018, the Washington Post and New York Times were awarded a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on alleged connections between Trump and Russia influencing the 2016 election. This was an attack on the truth, but not the worst in history. In 1964, the NYT was involved in an even greater assault on the truth in the case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. In this case, the United States Supreme Court, the most powerful judicial body in history, ruled that lies about public figures are protected unless the plaintiff can prove the publisher knew the information was false before publishing.

As the country approaches the final stretch of the 2024 election, vile rhetoric and lies will increase. The SCOTUS decision in NYT v. Sullivan has substantially contributed to this situation because, on that fateful day of March 9, 1964, the Court unanimously undermined the truth and made lies profitable. Yet this decision is celebrated as a great victory for the First Amendment and free speech. That’s nonsense. After Sullivan, media corporations filled with professional writers, supposedly dedicated to reporting the truth, were granted government protection to bear false witness against public figures.

This is especially damaging for political figures. As media-propagated lies spread, for example, from the NYT to other established news outlets, our political candidates and leaders are powerless to stop the spread or punish those who broadcast damaging false information. This poisonous discourse opens the floodgates to lies and, dare I say, disinformation, to the point where the Pulitzer Prize Board can confidently award a major news organization for publishing lies.

At this point, the best solution is to completely overturn Sullivan to reestablish respect for individual reputations and the truth as fundamental values. The concerns expressed by the SCOTUS in the Sullivan ruling...

[MtnClimber]

The “Slimes” and the “ComPost” would go out of business. But, the Russiagate hoax was clearly malicious so Trump should be suing the culprits into bankruptcy.

[sauropod]

.

[Tench_Coxe]

Nicholas Sandmann, Kyle Rittenhouse....two private citizens considered "public figures" and subjected to defamation.

Then there is Richard Jewell, who was able to get some justice for what was done to him.

Justice Thomas, about 10 years ago, had expressed a willingness to revisit Sullivan.

[griswold3]

To paraphrase Dingy Harry Reid, It worked, didn’t it?

[SomeCallMeTim]

Interesting

I’d say a better standard should be, the news source must prove due diligence in confirming the truth of the story

[Texas Fossil]

The “Slimes” and the “ComPost” would go out of business.

Amen! Bump