Federal judge pens dissent slamming decades-old press protections

[GummyVitamins]

Federal judge pens dissent slamming decades-old press protections

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe amounted to an assault on a Supreme Court decision that set the framework for modern defamation law.

www.politico.com

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe, contained in his dissent in a libel case, amounted to a withering, frontal assault on the 1964 Supreme Court decision that set the framework for modern defamation law — New York Times v. Sullivan.

Silberman said the decision, requiring public figures to show “actual malice” to recover against a news organization for libel, was a “policy-driven” result that the justices simply invented out of whole cloth.

“The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions,” the judge declared. “Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s….One-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy.”

Silberman slammed the New York Times and the Washington Post as “virtually Democratic Party broadsheets.” He added: “Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”

Silberman acknowledged the existence of conservative outlets such as Fox News, but warned of “serious efforts to muzzle” the network. He did not explain further.

Silberman also specifically decried Twitter’s decision prior to last fall’s election to ban links to a New York Post story relaying allegations about the contents of a computer that once belonged to Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden. The judge cited that as an example of how Silicon Valley “filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party.”

This was always a strange interpretation of the law. The idea that you lose your constitutional rights if you become a public figure, even against your own will, is a strange position for the courts to take who are supposed to defend the rights of the individual. This is an interesting case to bring before the new court to see what they do (if it gets there). I'm sure the left will be fighting this publicly because if this court overturns precedent for cases where decisions were made without legal merit it opens up other cases to be overturned as well. Coincidentally, there's an abortion case in Arkansas that seems to be designed specifically to get an updated decision from the Supreme Court and to walk back some of Roe v Wade.

 

[Phys251]

Federal judge pens dissent slamming decades-old press protections

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe amounted to an assault on a Supreme Court decision that set the framework for modern defamation law.

www.politico.com

This was always a strange interpretation of the law. The idea that you lose your constitutional rights if you become a public figure, even against your own will, is a strange position for the courts to take who are supposed to defend the rights of the individual. This is an interesting case to bring before the new court to see what they do (if it gets there). I'm sure the left will be fighting this publicly because if this court overturns precedent for cases where decisions were made without legal merit it opens up other cases to be overturned as well. Coincidentally, there's an abortion case in Arkansas that seems to be designed specifically to get an updated decision from the Supreme Court and to walk back some of Roe v Wade.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a landmark case that helped give the press the freedom it deserves according to the First Amendment.

People who support authoritarianism despise the freedom of the press, because a free press is one of the most powerful checks against authoritarianism.

 

[jonny5]

I would go the other way. The first amendment pretty broadly protects the press and speech. Until we amend it to add some privilege of people to be free from defamation, I dont think the govt should be punishing people for defaming others. Peoples perception of you is not something you own. The judge may be right in that freedom of the press is being abused to suppress speech, but the alternative of govt interference with free speech is worse. The solution here is for the govt to stay out of it, and allow for competition.

 

[GummyVitamins]

I would go the other way. The first amendment pretty broadly protects the press and speech. Until we amend it to add some privilege of people to be free from defamation, I dont think the govt should be punishing people for defaming others. Peoples perception of you is not something you own. The judge may be right in that freedom of the press is being abused to suppress speech, but the alternative of govt interference with free speech is worse. The solution here is for the govt to stay out of it, and allow for competition.

I largely agree, the problem I have with it is that we've moved past protections for public officials and moved it to public figures. We've also added layers of legal protections that do not exist for other defamation/libel cases that has created a nearly impossible legal hurdle to cross. If you should be able to have some legal recourse if you can prove that someone purposefully defamed you while knowing their statements were false at the time. The "press" is such a vague legal term that it essentially enables just about anybody to infringe on someone's rights. We've over-pivoted on this issue and the solution isn't to flip 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

 

[jonny5]

I largely agree, the problem I have with it is that we've moved past protections for public officials and moved it to public figures. We've also added layers of legal protections that do not exist for other defamation/libel cases that has created a nearly impossible legal hurdle to cross. If you should be able to have some legal recourse if you can prove that someone purposefully defamed you while knowing their statements were false at the time. The "press" is such a vague legal term that it essentially enables just about anybody to infringe on someone's rights. We've over-pivoted on this issue and the solution isn't to flip 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

Again, you dont have a right to how people think about you, or what people say about you. Defamation does not appear in the constitution, but free speech and press does.