Posted on 02/29/2016 7:27:33 AM PST by patlin
Forty-seven years ago, the free press became much more free.
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that journalists may not be sued successfully by public officials for libel unless their news coverage was false, damaged a reputation and was published with "actual malice." That meant establishing that the defamation was published "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The Court concluded that such protection was necessary to preserve open debate and discussion about government policy and conduct. Without that protection, the First Amendment guarantee of a free press was largely subject to widely disparate state laws, none of which provided a similar shield against lawsuits.
The 1964 case set the stage for the aggressive investigative reporting to come, including landmark reporting in the Watergate era. It is certainly one of the most important legal decisions in the history of American journalism -- and arguably one of the most settled.
That's why it was interesting to hear Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia bring up the case in a conversation at the Aspen Institute 2011 Washington Ideas Forum at the Newseum last week.
In elaborating on his point that courts should not render decisions that in effect legislate, he said that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan means "you can libel public figures without liability so long as you are relying on some statement from a reliable source, whether it's true or not."
"Now the old libel law used to be (that) you're responsible, you say something false that harms somebody’s reputation, we don't care if it was told to you by nine bishops, you are liable," Scalia continued. "New York Times v. Sullivan just cast that aside because the Court thought in modern society, it'd be a good idea if the press could say a lot of stuff about public figures without having to worry. And that may be correct, that may be right, but if it was right it should have been adopted by the people. It should have been debated in the New York Legislature and the New York Legislature could have said, 'Yes, we're going to change our libel law.' But the living constitutionalists on the Supreme Court, the Warren Court, simply decided, 'Yes, it used to be that ... George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don't think that's a good idea any more.'"
Scalia was using the case as an illustration, and there's no immediate likelihood that Times v. Sullivan will be overturned. But the justice's comments serve as a reminder that the protections afforded by that decision are not engraved on a monument -- and America's news media can't afford to take them for granted.
First of all, someone cannot just file a suit without showing just cause, i.e. evidence to the contrary.
Second, this is a state by state case as A1 of the Constitution does not give Congress authority over the press, that authority to this day remains with the states & thus what the SCOTUS did was change “state” law, a HUGE NO NO, they legislated for the state from the bench of a federal court.
Therefore, if someone is going t write a book and publish here in America, they and better have all their “i’s” dotted and their “t’s” crossed, because first and foremost, as long as the other cannot show just cause why the court should take the case, then there should be no worry.
Yeah, that's gotta be it.
Are you a lawyer? Because if you are, you should turn in your bar card. You don't have to show 'just cause' to file a complaint. You can file a complaint for anything - including suing the Pope for bastardy. There is no provision in any state code or federal code for showing cause before you file a lawsuit - unless you've been determined to be a vexatious litigant, which is a very narrow exception.
Oh, damn!
I better run and hide before you correct my grammar, too!
So tell me, when’s the last time a big media outlet had to pay for their journalistic malpractice?
“Burden of proof” my backside!
But you know, trolls gotta troll.
The issue isn’t grammar knucklehead. Try to keep up.
I guess the concept of freedom being messy goes over your head. But I suppose that is what one should expect from someone who would like to make the United States like Britain in regard to libel laws.
"Judas" always hides behind "the poor" before his kiss.
Well, that may be how you guys handle it in liberal states, however, where I live, where we still have constitutional conservative judges, one must first establish ‘jurisdiction’ and then once that is established, one must establish ‘just cause’ in their brief that actual ‘harm’ may have been done. The other side files their brief and then the judge determines whether or not to take the case. And it does not take a mountain of money to do that.
So as I said, if one stick to facts, undisputable facts, they have nothing to worry about should they decide to write a book about the facts in front of them.
A "priesthood of propaganda" is not freedom, but I guess that's the kind of duplicity we should expect from an oily character trying to defend lying in the public square to manipulate the masses.
Freedom is messy - learn it, love it, live it. And stop running interference for speech-muzzlers like the Saudis.
And by the way, are you an attorney?
Manipulating the public through deceit can not be defended by any real American.
Stop running interference for the “Ministry of Propaganda.”
Judas was the one who danced to the tune of the rich Pharisees. And I'm pretty sure the Pharisees would have loved your idea of shifting the burden of proof to the defendant - which in their case would have been Jesus.
Stop being a troll for muzzling people.
How do you look at yourself in the mirror knowing you are of the same moral caliber as those who try to drown out “abortion” by screeching “FREEDOM OF CHOICE?”
Well, we definitely know they were all behind your consequence free false accusation program.
Well, DUH! But just because you file a complaint does not automatically make it a full blown court case.
I think you are generally aware of this but are just playing stupid because it suits your position on shifting the burden to defendants in libel case.
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.