There have been numerous bids for the Supreme Court to overrule the Sullivan decision, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have both expressed a willingness to revisit it. It should be no surprise, then, that Sullivan has been a target in recent years. Sullivan decision, which has deterred the powerful from using defamation lawsuits to intimidate and silence for more than 60 years, ruling that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” That’s what the Supreme Court decided in its landmark 1964 New York Times Co. Using your political and financial power to bully critics into silence would make investigative journalism even more difficult, chilling critical reporting and severely hobbling our discourse and our democracy. The First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and a free press limit those lawsuits - and for good reason. If you could sue for defamation, hit them in their wallets, and have that make other people think twice before coming after you, you’d probably sleep much easier at night. If you’re a public figure or politician, there’s probably nothing you’d want more than to stop your critics from printing commentary you find unfair or damaging to your reputation. Their relationship with journalism and commentary - especially if it’s critical of them - has always been a contentious one. They say there’s no such thing as bad press, but it’s unlikely you’ll find too many politicians and public figures who can wholeheartedly agree. 254 (1964) 30 00:00:00 / 00:59:09 30 Subscribe to This ShowDownload This EpisodeEmbed This PlayerShare This Episode 254 (1964) FREE SPEECH OUT LOUDNew York Times v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |