16 Comments

As others rightly say, press freedom is a bedrock for democracy. As such, journalists have a responsibility to use this shield wisely. Fox News has not been good at this, hence their defamation lawsuits. Nothing like watching Russian news media waiting for guidance on how to describe current events. We cannot devolve into that mess.

Expand full comment

Painful as it can be, freedom of speech is a bedrock of democracy...

Expand full comment

I liken freedom of speech to the 2nd amendment problem. Do citizens have a right to own any kind of gun? Even when we see the issue of mass murder? Or should there be more gun regulation to protect society? With the bar set so high to prove malice in lying by the press we get the likes of Newsmax and Fox who lie with abandon and we see the damage done to our democracy as a result. It has created a parallel reality to the truth. Even though the truth is out there a lot of folks believe the lies. So much so it may permanently kill this country as we watch ourselves sink to authoritarianism. A lawsuit before I think was dismissed by a judge because she believed that clearly anyone with common sense could see that Fox News hosts lie. Really? We can see that isn’t the case. And the stakes are so high.

I believe in freedom of the press. But I also believe when the press lies blatantly there should be consequences. In my opinion the bar to go after those that lie in the press so blatantly as Fox is set to high right now. And honestly I don’t know how to fix this without also causing a tidal wave of lawsuits. But my gut says Fox should have been sued many times before Dominion and should have lost.

Expand full comment

*too high

Expand full comment

The press must have some responsibility for publishing lies, some pressure to make best efforts to avoid publication of lies. New York Times v. Sullivan went too far toward giving the press the freedom to publish lies without consequences for sloppy reporting.

Expand full comment

Timing is everything. While I enjoy living in a country where freedom of speech exists, I also know that by the time the truth rises above the ocean of lies, too much damage to our democracy and way of life has occurred. The Fairness doctrine kept the media in tow. We need to upgrade it to include social media as well. Then we need to enforce the laws on the books when it comes to our elected officials behavior. Lying to their uninformed base as Boeburt and MTG have done is a travesty of justice.

Expand full comment

Libel is one thing, but spreading lies, being an arm of a foreign or domestic enemy putting out propaganda. Facts vs. alternative facts. We have a problem that goes beyond whether or not someone was harmed by a lie.

Expand full comment

I have mixed feelings about it. While I believe the issue should be extreme before suing a reputable news agency over comments, maybe the lawsuit is a wake-up call to be more cautious and confirm the information they publish.

Expand full comment

From Washington Lawyer, October 2014 (https://web.archive.org/web/20160806121500/https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/october-2014-nyt-sullivan.cfm)

"The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed Jones in August 1962, and the strategy of intimidation by libel suits spread. By 1964, southern officials had brought nearly $300 million in libel actions against the press. Plaintiffs moved aggressively to collect their judgments." ...

"Large civil damages such as awarded in Alabama, Brennan said, were at least as inhibiting to speech as a criminal prosecution for seditious libel. That threat, combined with the Alabama requirement that the critic of official conduct guarantee the truth of all of his factual assertions, he said, is a recipe for self-censorship. 'The rule dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate,' Brennan wrote.

"But the right to criticize, he said, was not absolute. Setting down the famous test for libel, Brennan wrote: 'The Constitution requires a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' He noted that such a 'privilege for criticism' was appropriately analogous to the protections that public officials have from private libel suits under state and federal law. 'It would give public servants an unjustified preference over the public they serve, if critics of official conduct did not have a fair equivalent of the immunity granted to the officials themselves,' Brennan said."

Expand full comment

It is unfortunate the "Press" keeps the Devil's Son daily prominant feeding the 35% who have become enslaved into his hate and disrespect for American democracy. It is the "Press" that keeps renewing the division causing Americans vs Americans. Unity must be the most prominant discussion in every form of public intercourse, Eh!?

Expand full comment

Dominion lawsuit discovery and win prove it.

Expand full comment

Freedom of speech is crucial, but much of what we are talking about nowadays goes well beyond the parameters of what is protected. A large percentage of the press who spread false information either knew it was false, or recklessly disregarded the truth.

Expand full comment

While consumers digest news among a variety of mediums, it is still possible and remains so that several outlets provide a fact check or question false claims. I believe a bedrock of a democracy is the unfettered flow of ideas and accounts. My professor in college always stated that you can assess the health of a free society by how much media coverage exists. The NYT v Sullivan ruling provides opportunity for growth in media in our society. Over time, history and historians, journalists, etc. sift through the historical record to provide a more objective recount of events.

Expand full comment

I highly recommend Make No Law (Anthony Lewis) a fine record of the case. .

Expand full comment

While the decision gives conspiracy theorists and others of a detrimental ilk a lot of latitude, this country would be in a much darker place without the landmark ruling. Knowledge is power. Today I'm grateful that Pro Publica is the outstanding beneficiary of this ruling with their reporting on the non-existent ethics of certain Supreme Court Justices.

Expand full comment

Since prior to Pearl Harbor, when I learned from the evening radio news and my parents' animated conversation, that the press was being suppressed in Germany, I've been a First Amendment pom-pom girl, believing that the truth will eventually rise by allowing more free speech.

Expand full comment