There are - and should be - limitations to freedom of speech. And that is why political speech gets the highest level of protection.ĭon’t get me wrong. The people need to thoroughly discuss public policy and public people if self-governing is to work. “A main reason we have a First Amendment press clause is because it is essential to democracy,” he said. He would not discuss the Palin case which is now on appeal.īut he did respond to critics who have in tried to neuter the 1964 Sullivan defamation court defenses that protect the press. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court, written three First Amendment books and defended the likes of America’s premier investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh. I called Levine, who was an outside counsel for the Times in the Palin case, because he is one of the nation’s foremost defamation litigators. Some hoped the Palin case might make its way to the Supreme Court so it could re-evaluate if, in the era or social media, blogs, Google and podcasts, the Sullivan decision is outdated. More firewood for the flame of anger the political right is carrying against both the press and courts they insist are too activist. Palin lost when both judge and jury found she could not meet her burden of proof. But if the error is purposeful, all bets are off. Errors are inevitable in publishing, the court says, and therefore the press needs “breathing room” to promote the kind of “robust” debate democracy and self-governing demand. unless the public person, Palin, can prove that the Times knew what it published was false or was reckless in ascertaining the facts. The decision says the press cannot be held liable in a defamation lawsuit with a public person, such as Palin, unless … and this is the biggie. Sullivan, which is now under fire and attack from the political right. Or was the press protected by the 60-year-old Supreme Court decision, New York Times v. Was Palin’s reputation, already in tatters, so besmirched that she deserved damage money from the Times? By the way, the Times had not lost a defamation suit in 50 years. Palin, never shy and desperately trying to hold on to political significance, sued a legendary media institution that for her was part of the “lamestream media.” A closely watched trial ensued. Nonetheless, an editorial in the New York Times incorrectly linked Palin to the shooting. The Times immediately corrected its error. Gabrielle Giffords was subsequently shot and wounded at a campaign rally in Phoenix, some linked the shooting to the Palin advertisement, although there was no evidence the shooter saw it. She meant to simply say these districts were possibly up for turnover to the Republicans, but it came across as if she was putting a gun target on candidates. Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, is good at getting in the eye of the storm. She raised a ruckus in 2011 when she identified 20 congressional districts that were in her “crosshairs,” a word identified with hunting. Watch Video: Fox settles with Dominion for $787 million in defamation case
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |