Clarence Thomas backs Trump's call for changing defamation law to ease suits against media

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of this.

Why should politicians and public figures be held to different standards, regarding libel, than ordinary citizens? The article notes that "one of the key rationales for setting a higher bar for public officials to sue for defamation relates to their perceived ability to quickly quash misinformation on their own" but it also acknowledges our current "increasingly changed media landscape in which information travels more quickly than ever" and then also notes that the ability to quickly quash misinformation "is fading in the age of blogs and around-the-clock news coverage".

Whether someone 'likes' Trump or not, who can argue with this tweet?

Do you agree with Thomas' premise? Do you think we will see any lawsuits filed relating to this? Do you think politicians and public figures should be treated differently than ordinary citizens when it comes to libel?

I would love to see a return to more honest unbiased news reporting, and at least a modicum of respect for our elected leaders in general. Frankly, I'm tired of "fake news", propaganda, the politicizing of the so-called-news, the insidious bias shown by even the mainstream media, and the never-ending attacks on 'the opposition'. It's divisive, unproductive, misleading, and I think it has more of an influence on the average person than we think, even if it is largely a subconscious influence. The media had might as well be flashing subliminal "TRUMP BAD!" messages. This doesn't help anyone (except the haters who are already wallowing unhealthily in their own bile.)

Thoughts?

 

I'm the only one who thinks this is interesting?

 

I think it is interesting, Im just not sure who I dislike more. Lawyers or politicians!

 

I agree that something needs to be done.

The media has taken advantage of NYT v. Sullivan and engaged in the most outrageous and malicious activity while hiding behind the protection the landmark case gave them.

That needs to change, especially in this era of instant global dissemination of the trash many media outlets engage in.

The objective of destroying someone, on purpose, with impunity, and with nothing to support the effort, must be addressed.

 

You and I are of the same mind.

 

If the media does harm, it must pay.

It’s called “justice”.

 

That would be fine if we had the counterbalancing laws that allowed anyone to sue a politician for lying to the public or the press.

 

But is it "justice" if it is never enforced? Is it "justice" if there is a different set of rules for politicians and public figures?

I don't think we can do anything about the more subtle insidious harm the media causes every day, but I think it would be a positive thing for everyone if the media could at least be held more accountable for libel.

Nick Sandmann comes to mind as a case where the media ran amok.

 

Nick will come out of this very well.

 

I hope so. (I think you are correct.) Maybe it will be a wake-up call to the media.

 

The Left will never forget his face. He faces a lifetime of slander from the hate-filled left.

Clarence Thomas is right: Here’s why Supreme Court should revisit libel law overreach.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...n-constitutional-overreach-column/2985056002/

 

Good to see Justice Thomas is still alive, now maybe he can ask another question this decade. Obviously Mrs. Thomas got the word Trump was pissed

Interesting given it was the right that killed the Fairness Doctrine back in the Reagan Era and it was the right that sued the NYT in the Sullivan case. Wonder if they realize without the Sullivan decision all of FOX's prime time TV shows would be off the air tomorrow

Trump can sue the NYT or any other media source, all he has to do is prove that the author knew what they were reporting was false at the time of publication. Trump's Narional Inquirer is sued all the time and loses frequently. Keep in mind that Freedom of the Press is also part of the First Amendment, and unlike a civil libel case it involves balancing two Constitutional rights

 

Likewise, a certain poster.

 

Of course I agree with the great Justice Thomas, which is why I have been posting about revisiting NYT v Sullivan for many months.

1. Entertainment and "the press" must be separated and clearly delineated for purposes of who gets press protection and who does not.
2. Ownership of press protected companies must be diluted. Big corporation or billionaire wants to buy a large media company and use it for a lobbying mouthpiece? Fine and dandy... but no special press protection under 1A or any case law.

 

I don't have a strong opinion on this particular issue. What is absolutely unacceptable to me is the MSM, SPLC and Big Tech going after and silencing the alternative media all across the world and in America. It is very clear why they are doing it.... for financial gain and because in the war of ideas they lose in a fair debate. They are shutting down popular voices with million plus viewers with growing frequency. The left has gone full authoritarian (at their billionaire owners' request). If I had any advice for the left it would be to get rid of the goons and bring back the hippies. We need more Joe Rogan lefties and fewer Tim Cook lefties.

 

The first task of every despot and would be dictator is to attack the media and enlist others in the attack.

 

It is not the task of the media to engage in a fake news campaign that pushes a specific political narrative in place of true facts. When the media becomes a propaganda machine bent on undermining aspects of the country it simply does not like, then it has ultimately ceded its legitimacy and demonstrated it has no compelling reason to actually exist.

 

Citation?

Not that I don't believe it. I just think that the first step is to get the media on his side. It's hard for a despot to rise to power without support from public opinion.

 

It works both ways. Alex Jones and Infowars would be no more, and Breitbart would be on a short leash.

 

Why? Why does "entertainment" and "the press" get separate protection?

 

Another conspiracy prone conservative still crying cause Alex Jones got thrown off certain platforms. The guy lied, endlessly, made up fantasies he promoted to make a buck knowing there existed an audience he could play. And he was correct

Let him identify himself as a comic book and they'd probably let him return

 

Says the guy from the Democratic plantation.

 

So does that include FOX and the umpteen radio demogogues out there?

 

Because entertainment is not "the press" and entertainment should not receive the special protections "the press" receives. Entertainment should have the same speech rights everyone enjoys, but not the special protections afforded "the press."

 

I don't believe they do, problem is all the entertainment and infotainment sources that pass themselves off as actual news, or, entertainment programs that appear on news networks