Justice Clarence Thomas once again indicated his desire to review the precedent set by New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark First Amendment ruling.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to review a challenge to its landmark New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas has some thoughts.

The 1964 ruling established limits on public officials’ ability to sue on grounds of defamation, as well as the need to prove a standard of “actual malice” by the outlet making the allegedly defamatory statements.

The Supreme Court declined to hear Blankenship v. NBC Universal, LLC, a lawsuit brought by coal magnate Don Blankenship, who in 2015 was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of conspiring to violate safety standards at a Virginia mine where an explosion killed 29 workers. Blankenship was sentenced to a year in prison and fined $250,000. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Blankenship then sued NBC Universal, alleging that the news company had defamed him by describing him as a “felon.” Lower courts ruled that NBC had not acted with “malice” in their statements, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

While Justice Thomas concurred that Blankenship’s case did not require a ruling by the Supreme Court, he called for the justices to review the standard set by New York Times v. Sullivan “in an appropriate case.”

“I continue to adhere to my view that we should reconsider the actual-malice standard,” Thomas wrote,” referencing his previous opinion in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center. “New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” he added, “the actual-malice standard comes at a heavy cost, allowing media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”

The push from Thomas comes amid widespread media reporting on allegations of corruption and improper financial relationships involving the justice. A series of investigations by ProPublica and The New York Times have uncovered unreported gifts, real estate deals, and luxury perks given to Thomas by high-profile conservative figures — many of which were not reported in financial disclosures, or weighed as conflicts of interest in relevant cases.

In April, ProPublica reported on the extent of Thomas’ relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow. The real estate mogul gifted Thomas frequent rides on private jets, vacations to luxury resorts, and trips on his superyachts. Crow also purchased $133,000 in real estate from Thomas, and footed private school tuition bills for a child Thomas was raising.

Subsequent reporting has exposed Thomas’ relationship with other powerful conservative players, including the Koch brothers, oil tycoon Paul “Tony” Novelly, H. Wayne Huizenga, the former owner of the Miami Dolphins, and investor David Sokol.

Thomas has claimed that the omissions from his financial statements were nothing more than oversights and that he had been advised that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

  • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
    96·
    1 year ago

    Do you even know what the actual malice standard is?

    “Actual Malice” is a standard whereby press outlets are protected from printing things that are untrue that cause damages, under certain circumstances.

    First, the one being spoken of needs to be a public figure. There are two kinds of public figure: a general purpose public figure is someone who is widely known such as the president of the united states or a famous actor or actress or sports superstar. A limited purpose public figure is someone who injects themselves into a matter of public concern.

    Second, we’re talking about libel. Since truth is an absolute defense to libel, we’re talking about only things that are actually false statements of fact that cause damage to a person.

    Third, “false statements of fact” are a very limited subset of things you can say. A statement of fact legally is something that can be known by someone. The constitution broadly protects statements of opinions, so whatever has been said must be a legal statement of fact to be libellous.

    Fourth, just stating a “false statement of fact” is not a violation of the tort. Under the law, it must cause damage to the person you said the thing against. If you can’t prove damages, you can’t prove libel.

    Fifth, there’s a large number of situations where even if the actual standard doesn’t apply and the thing is libel, you can basically get away with saying an untrue statement of fact that causes damages, such as when you’re relying on information from the state, or from another authoritative source.

    Finally, “Actual malice” means that you can be proven to have had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement, as opposed to just a reckless disregard for the truth of a statement of fact.

    There are good reasons to think the actual malice standard isn’t really a good thing. Put yourself in the shoes of a person who has been lied about in the media and lost everything. Libel cases are really hard to prosecute, and in places like New York or California, there’s also strong anti-SLAPP laws to prevent you from suing someone just to silence them. Then just because you’re well-known or because you spoke up about a matter of public concern there is a lower level of protection against things that are false statements of fact that damage you.

    You’re thinking in a partisan way perhaps, but think about how this applies to Fox News. As long as they can maintain a certain level of plausible deniability they can lie with impunity. “I didn’t know for sure it wasn’t true” and then they can say whatever they want about you. Are you sure that’s what you want? Do you think Fox News should have the “freedom of press” to say things that are false statements of fact about you that damage you because you ended up in a matter of public conern?

    I don’t think that outrage is reasonable. Even if you don’t agree it should be ended, it isn’t an outrageous standpoint.

    • PizzaMan@lemmy.worldOP
      62·
      1 year ago

      Actual Malice” is a standard whereby press outlets are protected from printing things that are untrue that cause damages, under certain circumstances.

      Thats not really what it is.

      • Right now, the “actual malice” standard — that public officials and powerful individuals cannot win libel cases without proving that a statement was made with knowing or reckless disregard of its falsity

      https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-actual-malice-standard-explained/

      we’re talking about only things that are actually false statements of fact

      Not necessarily. Anybody can sue anybody over anything. How far that lawsuit goes is another story, and there should be protections from bullshit lawsuits from going anywhere. Because without such protections, debate and free speech can get shut down over fear of being sued for being critical of people.

      Finally, “Actual malice” means that you can be proven to have had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement, as opposed to just a reckless disregard for the truth of a statement of fact.

      That’s not what it means. It means that in an actual malice case, additional requirements are needed. The statement in question has to either be knowingly false OR reckless disregard.

      As long as they can maintain a certain level of plausible deniability they can lie with impunity. “I didn’t know for sure it wasn’t true”

      That counts as libel in any case, as is under current law.

      “I didn’t know for sure” is reckless disregard for the truth, which counts as libel even under the actual malice rule.

      Getting rid of the requirement doesn’t make things any better on this point.

      Do you think Fox News should have the “freedom of press” to say things that are false statements of fact about you that damage you because you ended up in a matter of public conern?

      They already don’t.

      it isn’t an outrageous standpoint.

      It’s an erosion of protections for the press by a corrupt judge. Even if the standpoint itself isn’t a big deal (it is, anything changing how 1st amendemnt is implemented is a big deal), the context of Clarence’s corruption makes it a big deal.

      Outrageous isn’t the word to use here. Instead the word is corrupt.

    • Throwaway@lemm.ee
      88·
      1 year ago

      Thank you, a hell of a lot better response than what I would have stated.

      This article is just ragebait.

    • TJD@sh.itjust.works
      310·
      1 year ago

      Great write up. Shame like 90% of the people here don’t care and would rather just continue to sling ignorant partisan hate

      • PizzaMan@lemmy.worldOP
        72·
        1 year ago

        He a corrupt judge making decisions about the legality of topics relating to free speech. That should ring alarm bells for anyone.