[ad_1]
Could President Donald Trump, Judge Clarence Thomas and a teenager from Kentucky prevent the Liberals from criticizing the Conservatives by redefining what constitutes defamation in the United States? Nick Sandmann seems determined to do it.
The Covington Catholic High School student, whose confrontation with a US elder, Nathan Phillips, went viral last month, is currently suing the Washington Post for $ 250 million alleging defamation, according to The Hill. Sandmann says that article coverage by Post – in which Sandmann wore a baseball cap "Make America Great Again" and smiled after Phillips approached it – constituted "a series of articles fake and defamatory online and printed articles ". He also claimed that the newspaper had covered the report in a way that denigrated Sandmann because he had a bias against Trump and considered him "a pawn in his political war against his political opponent".
In a similar story, Thomas argued that the Supreme Court should reconsider its historic first amendment judgment in the 1964 case New York Times c. Sullivan because "if the Constitution does not require public figures to meet a standard of malice in libel suits, then we should not do it either". Although it is unclear exactly what prompted Thomas to comment, these perfectly match Sandmann's arguments and Trump's well-documented hostility to the media.
This hostility, by the way, was evident in Trump's tweets on Wednesday.
"The press has never been as dishonest as today, stories are written that have absolutely no basis.writers do not even call to ask for a check." They are totally out of control.Unfortunately, I've kept a lot In six years, they will all go bankrupt! " Trump tweeted on Wednesday at one point.
Despite the passionate feelings of Trump, Thomas and Sandmann, the trio is likely to fight to make criticism of public figures more difficult.
"He has a very difficult burden to overcome … and should do it," Georgetown University law professor Frederick M. Lawrence told The Salon. "The norm is this: especially when the media is involved but anyone is sued for commenting on a public figure or a public subject, or even a public figure who inadvertently becomes a public figure, the plaintiff must demonstrate his knowledge. Real falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, reckless disregard for the truth, does not just mean gross negligence, so it is supposed to be a very, very high level. "
Lawrence stated that Sandmann appeared to be aware of the defamation demonstration standards, which meant that, unlike Thomas, he was not questioning the legal status quo, but argued that his case was one of them.
"He does not suggest it should not be the norm, so he thinks he can do it," Lawrence said. "So more power for him, but it's a very hard standard and I would be very surprised if the Washington Post proceeds here with the knowledge of the falsity of what they said or with reckless disregard." They might have misunderstood, but it's not reckless disregard for the truth. "
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz had a different point of view.
"I think they have a reasonable case, I mean the world was guilty of defamation," Dershowitz told The Hill. He added: "These poor children seemed to be doing exactly what they needed, and then suddenly, because they are considered privileged white kids, all of a sudden everyone is fighting against them. "
Lawrence also had some harsh words about Thomas's decision to try to undo New York Times c. Sullivan.
"I think it's misguided," Lawrence explained. "In fact, I am grateful to Judge Thomas for giving me the opportunity to reread Judge Brennan's opinion in The New York Times v. Sullivan of 1964. I think that it's a good thing." is as true today as it was then.Judge Brennan speaks of the need for the First Amendment to give what he calls "the breath" around the right to freedom of life. Expression, that it means the right of criticism of public officials, right to speak of public figures and matters of public interest, right to express opinions.And in order to create this space of respite, you have this high standard of defamation, real malice, and that means a knowledge of falseness or reckless disregard for the truth. "
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. also spoke harshly of Trump's attempts to discredit the free press in a statement released on Wednesday.
The expression "enemy of the people" is not just wrong, it is dangerous. He has an ugly history of handling dictators and tyrants seeking to control the public's information. And it is particularly reckless on the part of someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the enemies of the nation. As I have repeatedly said face to face with President Trump, there is growing evidence that this inflammatory rhetoric is an incitement to threats and violence against domestic and foreign journalists.
[ad_2]
Source link