Dan Moldea - A convicted criminal who acts like a mob boss and is hellbent on revenge against his real and imagined enemies—even those who have done nothing more than defend the rule of law—will soon control, directly or indirectly, every aspect of the federal government. And the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7-3 super majority of conservative justices will likely have his back and, more often than not, provide him with inexplicable immunity for his past and future crimes.
The President-elect believes that he has the right to defame at will without challenges or consequences for his false and misleading words and deeds. Among his top targets will be the members of the media who are critical of him and his decisions—those whom he has repeatedly labeled as “the enemy within.” Predictably, in retaliation, he will seek to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, the media shield laws, the statute of limitations and legal thresholds for defamation cases, and even the laws regarding legal and illegal wiretapping.
Sadly, the wealthy owners of major news organizations have already started to cave, cowering to the President-elect who is busy recruiting an army of multimillionaires and billionaires to wage his shameless war against, among others, the poor and the powerless and those who write and report the news....
The President-elect’s own appointments, especially to the Department of Justice and the FBI, should serve to warn us to prepare for a return to the darkness of the late 1940s and 1950s with blacklisting, naming names, redbaiting, reckless and malicious smear campaigns, and inducements for neighbors to inform on their neighbors.
Tragically, we are in for a rough ride starting in January 2025 that threatens to corrupt the soul of our nation.
New York Times v. Sullivan (Generative AI)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a landmark 1964 Supreme Court case that established the "actual malice" rule, which limits libel lawsuits against public officials:
The case
The case began when L. B. Sullivan, a Montgomery, Alabama city commissioner, sued The New York Times for libel over a 1960 advertisement that criticized Alabama law enforcement's treatment of Martin Luther King Jr. The ad contained some factual inaccuracies, such as claiming that the police "ringed" the campus where students were protesting.
· The decision
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the newspaper, establishing that the First Amendment protects the right to publish statements about public affairs, even if they are libelous. The court also ruled that public officials must prove "actual malice" to win a libel lawsuit, meaning they must show that the speaker acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
· The significance
The decision protects the press and others who speak on public affairs, and holds public officials accountable to their constituents. It also allows the press to challenge official truth on hidden subjects.
No comments:
Post a Comment