[ad_1]
Thomas wrote in parallel with a court decision not to take charge of the case of a woman who had accused Bill Cosby in 2014 of sexual sexual behavior. was poorly chosen
"The New York Times and the Court's decisions extending it were political decisions disguised as constitutional law," wrote Thomas.
"If the Constitution does not require public figures to meet a standard of malice in defamation lawsuits, then we should not do it either," the statement said.
"We did not begin to interfere in this area until almost 175 years after the ratification of the First Amendment in 1964. States are perfectly capable of finding an acceptable balance between encouraging vigorous public discourse and providing an effective means of damage to reputation and we should reconsider our jurisprudence in this area. "
His position echoes the complaints of President Donald Trump, who called for defamation laws to be reviewed in the light of current news about him, said CNN's Supreme Court analyst. and professor at the law faculty of the University of Texas, Steve Vladeck.
"Since he's campaigning, President Trump has complained about defamation laws in the United States and argued that they should be rewritten," said Vladeck. "The opinion of Judge Thomas, who agrees with the denial of certiorari today, is a road map exactly leading to this result."
Trump has repeatedly insisted on the issue, publicly calling politicians to change the existing laws on defamation.
[ad_2]
Source link