boutons_deux
02-01-2021, 02:55 PM
For more than half a century, conservatives have wanted to eradicate New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court decision that is the nation's most important First Amendment case.
If the Supreme Court invalidates NYT, federal judges—including the 230 appointed by President Trump—will preside over more libel suits against journalists he calls "the enemy of the people."
Those judges can carry out Trump's promise to "open up…libel laws…[and] have people sue you like you've never got sued before."
Anyone who makes factual errors when criticizing government or accusing a person of misconduct could be dragged into court and left destitute by a jury's verdict or legal bills.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the jury award in NYT and
required that a public official prove that "the statement was made with 'actual malice'
-- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
The "actual-malice" standard focuses on what defendants believed and not what they did.
The First Amendment—which did not protect even mild criticism of government or public officials during the founding era—is an example of how fundamental rights needed time to develop.
https://www.rawstory.com/palin-v-new-york-times
btw, Sullivan was an Alabama dude bitching out a NYT ad by black people,
explains why racist conservatives want Sullivan overturned
If the Supreme Court invalidates NYT, federal judges—including the 230 appointed by President Trump—will preside over more libel suits against journalists he calls "the enemy of the people."
Those judges can carry out Trump's promise to "open up…libel laws…[and] have people sue you like you've never got sued before."
Anyone who makes factual errors when criticizing government or accusing a person of misconduct could be dragged into court and left destitute by a jury's verdict or legal bills.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the jury award in NYT and
required that a public official prove that "the statement was made with 'actual malice'
-- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
The "actual-malice" standard focuses on what defendants believed and not what they did.
The First Amendment—which did not protect even mild criticism of government or public officials during the founding era—is an example of how fundamental rights needed time to develop.
https://www.rawstory.com/palin-v-new-york-times
btw, Sullivan was an Alabama dude bitching out a NYT ad by black people,
explains why racist conservatives want Sullivan overturned