One can strongly favor the first amendment while simultaneously disliking Sullivan. The current elevation of media establishments above the rest of the population is atextual and ahistorical.
While Sullivan has protected the media from frivolous suits, it also protects them from serious ones as well. Many private citizens, through no choice or action of their own, get swept into being "Limited Purpose Public Figures" and have vicious lies told about them with no regard given to truth. What makes them a "Limited Purpose Public Figure"? The simple fact that the press reported on them. And then when they go to sue, they get turned away because media organizations functionally have qualified immunity. This heightened standard is nowhere in the Constitution and has no place in a society where the Bill of Rights is supposed to apply to all Americans equally. I would even argue that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause bars it.
If Sullivan had been confined to what it actually was about - government figures rather than the absurdly broad public figures - I could see an argument for it. As it is, it's a net negative for the nation, and ought to be overturned.
Would that mean conservative outlets get sued more? Absolutely. If that means that media organizations might actually have to do their jobs and fact check their pieces, it's more than a worthwhile trade-off.
A much better replacement, in my opinion, would be anti-SLAPP laws. The devil is in the details, of course, but a law that says the plaintiff must make an up front showing of evidence that their lawsuit isn't frivolous would go along way to resolving the problem that Sullivan was trying to solve without making a certain class functionally immune from suit. It's even better for the organizations doing things right because it gives them attorney's fees.
"Supporters of free speech and the First Amendment have reason for concern as Donald Trump returns to the White House." What? Biden administration was the worst in terms of free speech, right behind Obama's, who jailed journalists they didn't like. Seriously, you are getting "weird".
You imply that the Sullivan actual malice standard is part of the First Amendment. False. Please apologise. It should be overruled. Let the defamation chips fall where they should.
One can strongly favor the first amendment while simultaneously disliking Sullivan. The current elevation of media establishments above the rest of the population is atextual and ahistorical.
While Sullivan has protected the media from frivolous suits, it also protects them from serious ones as well. Many private citizens, through no choice or action of their own, get swept into being "Limited Purpose Public Figures" and have vicious lies told about them with no regard given to truth. What makes them a "Limited Purpose Public Figure"? The simple fact that the press reported on them. And then when they go to sue, they get turned away because media organizations functionally have qualified immunity. This heightened standard is nowhere in the Constitution and has no place in a society where the Bill of Rights is supposed to apply to all Americans equally. I would even argue that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause bars it.
If Sullivan had been confined to what it actually was about - government figures rather than the absurdly broad public figures - I could see an argument for it. As it is, it's a net negative for the nation, and ought to be overturned.
Would that mean conservative outlets get sued more? Absolutely. If that means that media organizations might actually have to do their jobs and fact check their pieces, it's more than a worthwhile trade-off.
A much better replacement, in my opinion, would be anti-SLAPP laws. The devil is in the details, of course, but a law that says the plaintiff must make an up front showing of evidence that their lawsuit isn't frivolous would go along way to resolving the problem that Sullivan was trying to solve without making a certain class functionally immune from suit. It's even better for the organizations doing things right because it gives them attorney's fees.
100% correct. Well reasoned and expressed.
As we learned in the Twitter files one can censor by the suppression of speech as the Biden Administration did via federal agencies.
"Supporters of free speech and the First Amendment have reason for concern as Donald Trump returns to the White House." What? Biden administration was the worst in terms of free speech, right behind Obama's, who jailed journalists they didn't like. Seriously, you are getting "weird".
Cites? Which journalists? Would be news to me—thanks
You imply that the Sullivan actual malice standard is part of the First Amendment. False. Please apologise. It should be overruled. Let the defamation chips fall where they should.