I probably should’ve taken some time to come up with something a little more clever, and biting, but here is what I wrote to Ms. Joyce. (BTW: Is she an elected official, and can she be recalled? Sorry if this seems like a silly question...)
Thanks for emailing Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce
To: Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce
Subject: RE: Truth Squad
Comment:
So, as an officer of the court, are you actually ALLOWED to be a part of a specific campaign, and push for prosecutions that violate the First Amendment? Interesting... I hope your citizens start some kind of a recall election on you ASAP. Gestapo tactics don’t fly too well here in the US. I suggest you read the First Amendment before you go back to work on Monday.
From the ‘Civics Library Of The Missouri Bar’
Defamation and the Public Official
http://members.mobar.org/civics/DefamePubOff.htm
Pertinent pasages:
“The court ruled that constitutional guarantees prohibit a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice. Actual malice was defined as (1) knowledge of falsity, or (2) reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement. The court thereby ruled that a conditional privilege and the allowance of the defense of truth required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments applied.”
“The effect of this landmark case was the recognition of a qualified privilege under the U. S. Constitution to criticize public officials and candidates without liability for defamation. However, the court failed to outline the definition of ‘public official.’ What individuals were to be included in the term?”
“The Supreme Court later had the opportunity to clarify that point in its ruling in Rosenblatt v. Baer. Here the court stated, ‘The term public official applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.’ It also indicated that the public official must occupy a position that would invite public scrutiny and discussion of the person holding it.”
“In the Sullivan and Rosenblatt cases, the Supreme Court once again walked the fine but discernible line between the public official and the private citizen engaged in open discussion. The First Amendment was adopted in order to preserve the open discussion by the public of all political issues, including public officials. To allow a public official to recover every time someone made a statement that was not completely true would result in self-censorship of the press and the public discussion of these officials.”
END
Notice the last sentence:
“To allow a public official to recover every time someone made a statement that was not completely true would result in self-censorship of the press and the public discussion of these officials.”
STE=Q