Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,780
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 66:
Line 66: − + + +
→Times v. Sullivan
The landmark 1964 case involved an advertisement that was run in the ''The New York Times'' by supporters of the Reverend [[Martin Luther King]]. The police commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan, won a $500,000 [[libel]] judgment. It was overturned by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]. Chief Justice [[William Brennan]] wrote in the opinion that public figures would have to prove that libel was not only untrue and defamatory, but also made with “with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.” The ruling essentially made it more difficult for public figures to sue for libel than private citizens.
The landmark 1964 case involved an advertisement that was run in the ''The New York Times'' by supporters of the Reverend [[Martin Luther King]]. The police commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan, won a $500,000 [[libel]] judgment. It was overturned by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]. Chief Justice [[William Brennan]] wrote in the opinion that public figures would have to prove that libel was not only untrue and defamatory, but also made with “with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.” The ruling essentially made it more difficult for public figures to sue for libel than private citizens.
In March 2021 [[D.C. Circuit]] Judge Laurence Silberman wrote in a dissent that he was “prompted to urge the overruling of ''New York Times v. Sullivan'',” and that "Two of the three most influential papers, ''The New York Times'' and ''[[The Washington Post]]'', are virtually [[Democratic Party]] broadsheets." In one footnote, Judge Silberman likened the precedent on libel to the [[Leonid Brezhnev|Brezhnev Doctrine]], named after the [[Soviet]] party boss who proclaimed as Judge Silberman paraphrased it, “once a country has turned [[communist]], it can never be allowed to go back.” Wrote Judge Silberman: “Apparently, maintaining a veneer of infallibility is more important than correcting fundamental missteps.”
In March 2021 [[D.C. Circuit]] Judge Laurence Silberman wrote in a dissent that he was “prompted to urge the overruling of ''New York Times v. Sullivan'',” and that "Two of the three most influential papers, ''The New York Times'' and ''[[The Washington Post]]'', are virtually [[Democratic Party]] broadsheets." In one footnote, Judge Silberman likened the precedent on libel to the [[Leonid Brezhnev|Brezhnev Doctrine]], named after the [[Soviet]] party boss who proclaimed as Judge Silberman paraphrased it, “once a country has turned [[communist]], it can never be allowed to go back.” Wrote Judge Silberman: “Apparently, maintaining a veneer of infallibility is more important than correcting fundamental missteps.”
Judge Silberman wrote that the ''Sullivan'' precedent has allowed the press “to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” The “increased power of the press,” he warned, “is so dangerous today because we are very close to [[one-party control]] of these institutions.” He singled out the ''Washington Post'', the 'New York Times'', and [[National Public Radio]].
=== Modern ===
=== Modern ===