In response one can only observe that New York Times v Sullivan cannot be characterized as anything other than a holding which "greatly restricted (the) you use... of libel torts." I have quoted the language that severely restricts the right of public figures to bring such actions and sets out the very difficult burden of proof which must be carried with clear and convincing evidence. Any more restriction and one could scarcely see how the tort of libel could survive at all.
I suspect it is the elimination of this tort which is your actual goal rather than its restriction. You describe it as an inhibition on free speech and I concede that of course it is. Any restriction on free speech carries the burden of persuasion in justifying its existence. We have always admitted this tort because of the terrible harm a published liable can do to an individual, especially one who is relatively defenseless against someone who buys ink by the barrel.
But there is a far more important role for libel which justifies its existence. We live in an age of political correctness which is itself a ruthlessly effective "inhibition of free speech" which you say above that you deplore. You even cite an article which describes the baleful effects of free speech in academia. Judith Regan alleges that it occurred in her employment. We both know that it is a terrible blight on our democracy. You have cited other articles which describe its tremendous power in Europe. Today, it is political correctness which is generating the most chilling effects on free speech. The power of political correctness is growing and the power of the tort of libel is shrinking. The danger to our Republic is not from this tort but from political correctness.
You want to eliminate the tort of libel but it is, after all, one of the last remaining bulwarks against the chilling effects of political correctness. I have described how it works in my previous post. You ask us to unilaterally disarm and leave the field open to political correctness. Pass a law and enforce it prohibiting political correctness, and I will be the first to surrender my common-law rights not to be slandered.
Meanwhile, the power of the libel laws in America to set right the wrongs done to free speech in the name of political correctness more than justifies its very restricted ability to inhibit free speech.all of those citations in your last post which describe the politically correct and chilling effect of libel laws in Europe have absolutely no application in American jurisprudence (apart from the matter of enforcing foreign judgments which is an entirely separate concept.)
For the record, my religion is irrelevant here. I believe in very few restrictions on free speech.
You say that your religion has nothing to do with this, but can you say that you are not motivated by a desire as a supporter of Israel to identify to the world, without fear of libel actions being brought against you, who you think is an Islamic terrorist or supporter of terror? Is it not reasonable to conclude this from the very articles about Islamic terrorist organizations in Europe which you cite in your previous post?
Particularly here where Regan’s job was on the line BEFORE she made/did not make the remark, her suit stinks of using Jesse Jackson like tactics to extort money.
I confess I am a loss to know how to respond to this apart from my remarks in my previous post. It seems to me that you have the wrong end of the telescope to your eye, it is not Judith Reagan who is using Jesse Jackson like tactics but those who claimed she is an anti-Semite.
Do you really want libel claims used to dictate who an employer can or can’t fire? since employment at will is the norm in the US, this represents an attempt to undermine that freedom too.
Certainly not. Fortunately there is nothing in this case which suggests that if she prevails that would be the effect. If she proves that she was fired for being an anti-Semite because she uttered certain words -but she never uttered those words- I think she has an action not only for libel, but for wrongful breach. And I hope she wins both of them because they lied about her and they blackguarded her, and they blackguarded her as a cover to terminate her-a classic case of malice.
I say again, in today's world of political correctness where the truth means nothing and speech is intimidated everywhere, the best hope for First Amendment supporters of free speech is that Judith Regan, if she proves her case to be true with clear and convincing evidence, might be awarded every penny of her hundred million dollar claim.
