Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Leto
Justice Scalia: reflections on New York Times v. Sullivan

“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.’”

I will stand with Sacilia and Trump over Lying Ted Cruz

150 posted on 03/14/2016 11:21:24 AM PDT by scooby321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]


To: scooby321

Scalia merely said it should have been debated not that ruthless politicians should be allowed to run over journalist.

As for standing with Scalia that includes his stand on affirmative action which Trump ignorantly disputed.


189 posted on 03/14/2016 12:03:04 PM PDT by Leto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson