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 ...
Look up the definition of libel.
I agree with non-officials like authors, actors, etc. I don’t agree that the same level should be applied to govt personnel. Else the govt could then crack down on criticism claiming libel and the person then has to pay defense expenses for free speech.
No he just thinks that the criticism should be fact-based instead of wild character assassinations like ‘racist’, ‘homophobe, and ‘Nazi’.
“No he just thinks that the criticism should be fact-based instead of wild character assassinations like racist, homophobe, and Nazi.”
Well then a lot of people on social forums like this one are going be in big trouble.
Criticism and libel are different things, aren’t they?
Oh no, you mean people might need to actually find evidence before labeling every politician they disagree with a satanic pedophile human trafficker?
That would totally ruin free political discourse in our country!
YES! YES! YES! Brilliant, Justice Thomas! This would be incredible!!
BINGO! BINGO! BINGO!
Nonsense, but the MSM WILL be!! And SHOULD be!
Nonsense, but the MSM WILL be!! And SHOULD be!Well then a lot of people on social forums like this one are going be in big trouble. - revel
. . . after all, the MSM is actually the objective journalism cartel which is instituted by (all of the) wire services.There has to be a difference between a story in a newspaper which can count on the entire Associated Press to swear to it and claim its objective even if its proven false, on one hand, and someone/some web site which makes no claim to be wiser/more objective than thou.
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.