Мобильный 1 Add news
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010June 2010July 2010
August 2010
September 2010October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011March 2011April 2011May 2011June 2011July 2011August 2011September 2011October 2011November 2011December 2011January 2012February 2012March 2012April 2012May 2012June 2012July 2012August 2012September 2012October 2012November 2012December 2012January 2013February 2013March 2013April 2013May 2013June 2013July 2013August 2013September 2013October 2013November 2013December 2013January 2014February 2014March 2014April 2014May 2014June 2014July 2014August 2014September 2014October 2014November 2014December 2014January 2015February 2015March 2015April 2015May 2015June 2015July 2015August 2015September 2015October 2015November 2015December 2015January 2016February 2016March 2016April 2016May 2016June 2016July 2016August 2016September 2016October 2016November 2016December 2016January 2017February 2017March 2017April 2017May 2017June 2017July 2017August 2017September 2017October 2017November 2017December 2017January 2018February 2018March 2018April 2018May 2018June 2018July 2018August 2018September 2018October 2018November 2018December 2018January 2019February 2019March 2019April 2019May 2019June 2019July 2019August 2019September 2019October 2019November 2019December 2019January 2020February 2020March 2020April 2020May 2020June 2020July 2020August 2020September 2020October 2020November 2020December 2020January 2021February 2021March 2021April 2021May 2021June 2021July 2021August 2021September 2021October 2021November 2021
News Every Day |

In the Wake of Rittenhouse, Our Defamation Laws Must Be Changed (Part One of Two)

Back in the 1960s — more than half a century ago — the New York Times ran an ad in their very powerfully influential Sunday edition about racism in Alabama and in some other southern states. The advertisement, “Heed Their Rising Voices,” consisted of a long narrative detailing some really bad racial hate and actions down there, with a focus on the institutional harassment and mistreatment of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.,  and was signed by a long litany of famous entertainers, Nobel Prize winners, civil rights leaders, and faith figures. Names like Marlon Brando, Ruby Dee, Stella Adler, Harry Belafonte, Rev. Donald Harrington, Sammy Davis, Jr., Sidney Poitier, Mrs. Ralph Bunche, Bayard Ruston, A. Philip Randolph, Hope Lange, Nat King Cole, Jackie Robinson, and Eleanor Roosevelt. The ad, however, went beyond exclusive accuracy and described some additional forms of racial hate that simply were not true. For example:

In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” on the State Capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school, and truck-loads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to re-register, their dining hall was pad-locked in an attempt to starve them into submission.

It was not true that the state police had undertaken to starve the students. Likewise, the ad incorrectly alleged some other hateful race actions supposedly perpetrated by the Montgomery police — but actually not. Against that backdrop, Montgomery Police Commissioner Lester Bruce Sullivan wrote the Times, demanding a retraction. Sullivan was so politically influential, powerful, and presumably popular in his city at that time, that he not only was police chief but also was prison commissioner, commissioner of public safety, fire commissioner, and was in charge of cemeteries and scales. You might say he worked on commission, evocative of those comical movies where the highway trooper stops a speeding driver, writes a ticket, the driver says he will fight it in court, and the cop then takes out a robe and a powdered white wig and says “Go ahead, I’m also the judge.”

The Times wrote back that the ad was not about Sullivan but about racism in the south. Sullivan then sued the Times and several prominent civil rights leaders for defamation. He could have sued in New York or Alabama, and his attorney obviously chose Alabama. He sued in state, not federal, court. Given an Alabama jury, he won a verdict of $500,000. The Times appealed within the Alabama judicial system up to the Alabama Supreme Court and lost. At this point, they sought help from the federal system, essentially contending that this was one of those unusual situations where a defendant could not get justice in a prejudiced state venue. The United States Supreme Court heard the case and handed down a landmark First Amendment opinion, New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964).

In summary — my way of saying it, not the Court’s — here is the Court’s bottom line:

America cherishes First Amendment freedoms, including freedom of speech and of the press. A robust news media is vital to a free society because, when other organs in the system become corrupted, the press exists as a Fourth Estate, independent and free outside the system, to root out corruption. This has been true from John Peter Zenger to the fictional Jimmy Stewart character in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The press uncovered important aspects of Watergate, and — believe it or not — the New York Times played an important role in revealing Hillary Clinton’s emails and in, uh, exposing Anthony Weiner. Therefore, the Court said, we have to protect newspapers and journalists from being sued into bankruptcy when they make mistakes that are more innocent than not.

At the time, a series of southern state juries had handed down some $300 million in defamation judgments against various northeastern newspapers. It actually had become a concerted political strategy in the south to sue news organs in the north for libel (written or published defamation). These judgments threatened the continued survival of a free press in two ways, one overt and one subtle. The judgments literally stood to knock certain media out of business. Equally concerning, such judgments essentially threatened to intimidate news media to self-censor, very much akin to what conservative professors now do at cancel-culture universities where they teach on egg shells and fear speaking truth. If journalists will not ferret and publications will shy away from disclosing truths about corruption among the powerful, we will emerge no better than Stalinist Russia, Castro Cuba, Maoist China, Hitler Germany, almost all Arab Muslim regimes, Shiite Iran, and Chavez Venezuela. Therefore, we do need to protect media from being bankrupted by defamation suits.

On the other hand, innocent people have to be protected, too. We cannot just allow media to soil people whom they hate. There needs to be balance, with even extra protections for private people. In the case of public figures, they consciously have chosen the limelight. That brings them lots of money, fame, glory — while everything in life comes at a price. If you want to be a famous Congressman, your texting fetish will bring you more embarrassment when disclosed to the public than a private pervert would experience. If you want to make zillions of dollars by memorizing some script lines, acting or singing pretty well, and want the fame of everyone knowing you and begging you to autograph their napkins at restaurants, you also need to accept that some of your private moments will be invaded, and nudniks with cameras will photograph you at your front door step before you have applied your makeup or done your hair first thing in the morning when you open that door to bring in the milk, the mail, or the Amazon delivery. Likewise, an “innocent” peck on the cheek may show up on the front page of a supermarket-line weekly scandal newspaper, with a caption implying adultery, because the same fools who live all week to read your every tweet and to experience their lives vicariously through your alveoli also have a “right to know” what you really look like and with whom you are cavorting. Therefore, public people should expect to receive less legal protection from media mistakes. Also — very importantly — a public person can call a press conference or go on a TV interview to refute and tell his or her side of the story, while a private person does not have that access.

As a result, the Court unanimously came up with a new rule: a public person suing for defamation must show clear and convincing proof of “actual malice.” That unfortunate two-word term actually is a poorly conceived descriptor, confuses the law more than sheds light on it, and has given rise to countless mistaken lawsuits and judgments based on mixing up what “actual malice” means. In one particularly weird but quasi-landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court had to reverse a federal appellate circuit holding because the appellate judicial panel literally had misunderstood aspects of the term.  Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245, 96 S. Ct. 465 (1974). Under the new rule — sometimes called “actual malice” and sometimes called “New York Times malice” — a plaintiff public person must show that the alleged defamation is factually false and that the defamer knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Four years later, the Supreme Court determined they needed further to clarify what “reckless disregard for the truth” entails, so they further held that it is “reckless” when someone entertains serious doubts whether a particular horrible allegation is true but publishes it anyway without checking into it further. That is, it is not the mistake of fact but the defamer’s determined alacrity in publishing the accusation even though he or she perceives an uncertainty and knows the facts responsibly need to be double-checked. St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S. Ct. 1323 (1968). The painful ramification of St. Amant: If the defamer is a moron or idiot and does not realize that the accusation needs some extra “looking up” and “checking into,” the defamer will win at trial because that defendant never entertained serious doubts. So the plaintiff has to get inside the defamer’s head, showing what actually was being thought, and that usually entails oral discovery (depositions) and written discovery (interrogatories, document demands, and such). In St. Amant, the majority felt they could not say with certainty that the defamer had entertained serious doubts as to the veracity of his wrong claims before he published them, so he got off scot-free even though he and an associate he sponsored lied about his political opponent on TV. There is a really amazing dissenting opinion in St. Amant, where Justice Fortas, who himself was the target of defamers, wrote:

The First Amendment is not so fragile that it requires us to immunize this kind of reckless, destructive invasion of the life, even of public officials, heedless of their interests and sensitivities. The First Amendment is not a shelter for the character assassinator, whether his action is heedless and reckless or deliberate. The First Amendment does not require that we license shotgun attacks on public officials in virtually unlimited open season. The occupation of public officeholder does not forfeit one’s membership in the human race. The public official should be subject to severe scrutiny and to free and open criticism. But if he is needlessly, heedlessly, falsely accused of crime, he should have a remedy in law. New York Times does not preclude this minimal standard of civilized living.

Petitioner had a duty here to check the reliability of the libelous statement about respondent. If he had made a good-faith check, I would agree that he should be protected even if the statement were false, because the interest of public officials in their reputation must endure this degree of assault. But since he made no check, I agree with the Supreme Court of Louisiana that New York Times does not prohibit recovery.

In a follow-up landmark defamation case a decade later, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997 (1974), the Court tried to give a bit more power to defamation plaintiffs who are more private players in society but who are targeted on matters of public concern, for example an extremely liberal attorney nevertheless being labeled as a communist when he defended a Black youth who had been shot to death by a White police officer. And ten years later, the Court gave even more latitude to private plaintiffs in defamation suits entailing matters that are purely privateDun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 105 S. Ct. 2939 (1985). We have been locked into these defamation rules, more or less, ever since. Thus, in 1982 Time magazine published lies and a “hit piece” accusing Israel’s then-Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon, of plotting with Lebanese Maronite Christian Arabs to murder “Palestinians” in a south Lebanon “refugee camp.” Sharon sued for libel, and his legal team proved at trial that Time had published lies and that key players in writing the account had long, documented, proven left-wing political biases that drove their hit piece. Even so, Sharon was denied damages (money) because the jury were not fully certain whether the key lies were completely purposeful and whether Time’s editors had entertained serious doubts when they asked their biased journalist whether he was certain of his claims — to which he responded with the equivalent of an unspoken thumbs-up gesture. Consequently, Sharon sued again — this time in Israel — and he emerged with an out-of-court settlement that cleared his reputation to the extent that he eventually became Prime Minister. However, he could not get that justice under America’s defamation laws. Our defamation laws demand revisiting.

The post In the Wake of Rittenhouse, Our Defamation Laws Must Be Changed (Part One of Two) appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Read also

The best new TV to stream this week – from Money Heist to Flat Out Fabulous

[Women's Basketball] Turnovers Hurt Hawks Against #17 Northwestern

Marcus Stroman: Mets aren’t going to re-sign me

News, articles, comments, with a minute-by-minute update, now on Today24.pro

News Every Day

Party Supplies Market Growth to Surge Owing to Increasing Adoption by End-use Applications

Today24.pro — latest news 24/7. You can add your news instantly now — here

News Every Day

Stacey Solomon reveals hair transformation on date night after accidentally dying her eyebrows RED

Sports today

Новости тенниса
Кубок Дэвиса

Ришар Гаске: Не думаю, что "Кубок Дэвиса" экономически выгоден

Спорт в России и мире

ЦСКА обыграл «Баварию» в матче баскетбольной Евролиги


All sports news today


Sports in Russia today

Путин передал приветствие участникам чемпионата Европы по дзюдо среди смешанных команд

Новости России

Game News

Fortnite's 'The End' event: Everything we know


Юные «водники» победили на юношеском турнире на призы правительства региона

Губернаторы России

Вильфанд предупредил жителей Европейской России о резком потеплении в конце ноября

Конструкции пяти станций Троицкой линии метро готовы более чем на 50%

Audi e-tron Sportback – второй полностью электрический SUV*

Собянин указал на адаптацию экономики Москвы к пандемии коронавируса

Самой популярной криптовалютой среди россиян оказался биткоин

Юрий Лоза полагает, что в эпидемии коронавируса виноваты врачи

В Великом Новгороде выступит Сергей Трофимов

СМИ: после заявления Бастрыкина в Москве закрыли ресторан рэпера Моргенштерна из Уфы, он сам уехал из страны

Певица Ольга Зарубина заявила, что Александр Малинин женился на ней ради прописки в Москве

Дарья Медведева - о завершении карьеры: Было больно. Первое время я знать ничего не желала о теннисе

Кубок Дэвиса. Хорватия на старте переиграла Австралию

Ришар Гаске: Не думаю, что "Кубок Дэвиса" экономически выгоден

У теннисиста Медведева украли часы за 200 тысяч евро на итоговом турнире ATP

Игорь Маковский: «День филиала» стал эффективной площадкой для диалога руководителей

Как Лукашенко в дёсны с янки целовался

Глава минздрава Германии Шпан заявил, что немцы либо вакцинируются от COVID-19, либо умрут


Издание Przeglad Sportowy сравнило итоги жеребьевки стыковых матчей с «черной пятницей»

Роскосмос спроектирует космические корабли для новой орбитальной станции

Разногласия Армении и Азербайджана решаются в Сочи и Брюсселе

Приехавший в Россию житель Индии Оджас восхитился красотой московского метро

Путин в России и мире

Персональные новости

Ольга Бузова

Ольга Бузова, Ксения Собчак и Алла Пугачева стали самыми упоминаемыми в СМИ персонами

News Every Day

Party Supplies Market Growth to Surge Owing to Increasing Adoption by End-use Applications

Friends of Today24

Музыкальные новости
"Воскресенье " Олег Митяев

Персональные новости
Близкий друг Путина миллиардер Пугачев. Вся правда о Путине, его семье и деньгах. В гостях у Гордона (2021)

Навальный об уволенном за пост священнике (2021)

Slava Marlow – суперуспех и депрессия в 21 год / вДудь (2021)

Обнаглевшие дети путинской элиты (2021)

Дайте собакам мяса (новый звук) -Владимир Высоцкий

Группа "Рождество" - песня "Так хочется жить!" (Видео с концерта в Киеве группы "РОЖДЕСТВО" в 2011 году в Доме офицеров)

Adriano Celentano Любимая песня Челентано (высочайшая энергетика) talentTV