Posted on 11/30/2024 5:53:37 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
Relevant section starts at 21:40 into the youtube video.The 1964 New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan was handed down as a unanimous decision of the (to conservatives, notorious) Warren Court. It was not only unanimous, but included enthusiastic concurrences by justices who wanted to go even further.
In is the Sullivan decision which severely inhibits the filing of libel suits by “public figures” - emphatically including politicians. The theory of the decision basically was that politicians are big boys who can handle themselves in propaganda contests because they have political parties behind them.
Scalia’s rebuttal is that “the” freedom of speech, or of the press referred to American understanding that speech and press freedom had recognized limits at the time of the passage of the First Amendment. And that there was no understanding, anywhere in America, that the First Amendment touched existing laws against libel, slander, or pornography.
It was not the case that the framers of the Constitution were at all opposed to any part of the Bill of Rights, rather the absence of any bill of rights in the unamended Constitution reflected fear that no bill of rights existed or could be composed which would not risk denigrating some right or another, and the whole thing would be a controversial mess. And controversy was the very thing that the Framers wanted to avoid. The Federalists also feared that a listing of rights would be treated not as a floor under our rights but - as certainly can said to have historically been the case - a ceiling over them.
SCOTUS did not legitimately have the right to take away the right of an aggrieved to sue for libel. The impact of Sullivan, I would argue, has been growing all my life. Politics was at least somewhat civil when there could be consequences for bold-faced lying - which is what we have seen Democrats engage in. Republicans have done much less of that for the simple reason that Democrats have had the “air cover” of the MSM - something which was not considered in the Sullivan decision.
When the 1st Amendment was written……duels were still legal.
Germane.
good
Exactly correct. It is precisely from the time of the Sullivan decision that the United States became a Mediacracy, where the Media, dominated by the Progressive ideology, became far more powerful than the political parties.
The Progressive ideology favored the Democrats, but most Republicans were Progressives as well.
The ideological domination of Progressives in the Media can be traced back to the FCC and the dominance in the Media from the radio networks which became the television networks.
It still blows my mind that our Congress members can lie, tell any lie in Congress and not be held accountable.
It comes from the Constitution.
Members of Congress have immunity from the law for anything they say while Congress is in session, or traveling to or from Congress.
It was meant to protect the independence of members of Congress from domination by the Executive branch, and to protect minorities in Congress from domination by the majority.
This had happened frequently in England.
Yes, but it can hardly be thought that the object of Christianity is to promote dueling.The Ten Commandments declare in part, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” . . . and slander is exactly that - and libel is industrial-scale slander.
So when evaluating the First Amendment from the POV of, “how can we declare a right in such a way that it will suppress the objections of the Antifederalists without creating objections which do not yet exist,” is should be clear that delegitimating existing restrictions on speech and press would have risked creating a backlash from the entire, far from inconsiderable, Christian community.
The whole idea of the Bill of Rights was to say in effect, “Whatever changes in rights which will be effected by the Constitution are explicit in the Constitution - no “creative” changes to existing rights will be countenanced.” Exactly the message that liberals do not wish to hear - and exactly what the Warren Court did in its Sullivan decision. The Sullivan decision takes for granted at least a rough balance in the propaganda power of political parties, which basically assumes a two party system and assumes away the reality that the Associated Press (indeed any and all wire services) inherently homogenizes big journalism.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)The term “virtual meeting” didn’t exist in 1964 (let alone earlier times such as when the Sherman Antitrust Act was new), but in retrospect the AP was the first large-scale virtual meeting - and as such it had to promote “a conspiracy against the public” within journalism.
It was meant to protect the independence of members of Congress from domination by the Executive branch, and to protect minorities in Congress from domination by the majority.
This had happened frequently in England.
Yes. I do however quibble over where the viewer of C-Span is.AFAIK the Constitution does not protect the ability of a Member of Congress to set up a printing press inside the building, libel people to his heart’s content, and scatter such infamous printed matter to the four winds outside the halls of Congress. And that is the direct analog of slandering someone when speaking into one of C-Span’s microphones.
Prime example - Andy Jackson, and he was president.
It is a good point.
I want to see the Sullivan decision overturned.
My analysis of the incentives under which the Federalists operated did not refer to promoting Christianity but to accommodating already extant Christians. Freedom of speech was already an established principle - but the right to not be lied about verbally or in print - a right enforceable via slander/libel civil action - was also an established principle (understandable WRT the commandment against false witness).
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.