Posted on 04/08/2023 5:42:37 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
At Gov. Ron DeSantis's (R-FL) urging, Florida Republicans are eagerly drafting a bill to expand the scope of defamation law. But not everyone in the conservative movement is a fan.
During an exclusive interview with the Washington Examiner, former Vice President Mike Pence made clear that he was not thrilled about challenging New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court case establishing the actual malice standard for defamation of public figures.
"Well, let me just say in the broadest sense, I believe a free and independent press is a bulwark of our nation," Pence said. "From my years in Congress, as a governor and, I trust, as vice president, we've worked to preserve the ability of the media, however maddening it can be from time to time, we’ve worked hard to preserve the freedom of the press to thrive in America. I would hold to the view that any effort to intrude upon that would not be in the interest of the nation."
Under current law, the actual malice standard requires a defendant to make a knowingly false statement or have a reckless disregard for the truth when making a defamatory statement about a public figure.
"I've helped found and co-chair the world Free Press caucus when I was a member of Congress," Pence, who served in Congress and as the governor of Indiana prior to becoming former President Donald Trump's vice president, said. "I’ll always be a champion of a free and independent press, and I trust that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the United States will preserve our First Amendment."
While Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has called for the nation's highest bench to reconsider Sullivan, former Attorney General William Barr and other prominent Republican lawyers have opposed the push to expand the scope of defamation law.
“Free and independent press”? Lol
If Pence is for it, I’m against it.
You haven’t got the foggiest.....you have just SWALLOWED ALL THE LEFTY CRAP! They AND TRUMP are PETRIFIED of Desantis, that’s why they have sown these seeds of doubt.
NO he hasn’t!
Very rarely does a POTUS candidate get to pick VP choices.
Do you think Reagan would have chosen GHW Bush? The party controls that.
True. Pence is just a pious version of Romney.
Pence is one of these weirdos who still believe it’s 1981 and Reagan is in office.
I’ll have to see what the law actually says first but in general I’d be against it.
You want a free and independent press, break up up the media monopolies and oligarchies. Look who owns our media.
“Under current law, the actual malice standard requires a defendant to make a knowingly false statement or have a reckless disregard for the truth when making a defamatory statement about a public figure.”
Supposedly the above is what it is now, but what exactly would be different in the new law?
It seems we need to know that before commenting on it.
Pence is a joke and totally out for himself. He is the thinner Chris Christie.
Perhaps both apply for Mikey Pence.
Trump was about to get totally snookered (that's the nice way of saying it) by the maniacal little runt and the scarf bitch. Maybe by the scarf bitch even more than by the maniacal little runt.
Peter Navarro, inside of five minutes of having met the little runt, was advising Trump to fire his maniacal little ass, and one might infer likewise of the scarf bitch too, but Pence, as "Head of Pandemic Policy" was just blahblahblah. Hey, that's what local AM talk radio guys from flyover country do when they want to get along.
Once he, Pence, was actually in charge of something, he just went on with the blahblahblah and really had no problem with the murdering little runt and his toady the scarf bitch, both of them lacking only the makeup to qualify for a Batman episode.
Pence was looking out for other interests... whomever it was, as you point out, who put him there to begin with.
Just a platitudinous response aimed at quelling any cognitive unease in the rubes. It’s loaded with focus group tested and scripted, weasley words that politicians are practiced in using.
I agree. The vast majority of the press are at the beck and call of the Democrat Party. They are supposed to be watching out for all Americans, but they only care about their own agenda.
I know and I agree with you.
That said, none of that has much to do with this current or proposed law except that Pence just yammers to sound important.
I doubt he even knows what is in the new law because this article doesn’t say.
SCOTUS often makes very narrow decisions/rulings. After years of seeing the consequences of such cleverly crafted rulings we have seen instances where the results were harmful.
OMG! Was the group that was harmed one about which we CARE??!
My point is that it is very reasonable to look closely and question 🙋 some past thinking/rulings. (Isn’t that ALWAYS what the progressives do, anyway?)
And Mike Pence? Well, if the cheat had not been so strong I figure Mr. Pence would be getting the Spiro Agnew treatment right about now.
I see what you did there. A nice defense of Pence.
Really? I want to abolish defamation law.
Defamation law does NOT benefit "good guys." It benefits Deep Pockets. A Deep Pocket can afford to sue for defamation, and defend against defamation, whether he's good or bad.
A poor or middle class person can't afford a lawsuit. Can't sue for defamation. Can't defend if he's falsely charged.
Now, think about it. Say you post a true accusation, or opinion, against a Deep Pocket. He threatens to sue you unless you remove the post. You might win, but only after a long legal battle, costing you tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. Most people will probably cave and remove the post.
Likewise, if a poor or middle class person is defamed, he HAS to sue or else people might believe the accusation. Whereas if defamation were legal, nobody would believe any accusation without proof, because anyone can say anything.
Walter Block makes an excellent for abolishing defamation in his libertarian classic, Defending the Undefendable.
The ADL has been trying to expand the scope of defamation law for decades. You trust the ADL?
The ADL is upset that the First Amendment prohibits laws against "group defamation." That is, you can't be sued for defaming a group (e.g., Jews, Muslims, blacks, gays, trannies, etc.).
The ADL would like to make "anti-Semitic" statements liable to defamation lawsuits. Of course, such an expansion would allow any "group" to sue for defamation (though I doubt such laws would be interpreted strictly when defaming whites or Christians).
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.