Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Here's the ad that led to NYT v Sullivan (Original Post) struggle4progress Feb 2019 OP
L.B. Sullivan, not mentioned in the ad, claimed it defamed him. An Alabama jury struggle4progress Feb 2019 #1
very cool... pecosbob Feb 2019 #2
There were no dissenting opinions in NYT v Sullivan struggle4progress Feb 2019 #3
From Brennan's opinion: struggle4progress Feb 2019 #4
Thomas Attacks the Press struggle4progress Feb 2019 #5
Thomas Wants to Make It Easier to Sue for Libel struggle4progress Feb 2019 #6
Thomas Says Court Should Reverse Landmark Libel Ruling struggle4progress Feb 2019 #7

struggle4progress

(118,379 posts)
1. L.B. Sullivan, not mentioned in the ad, claimed it defamed him. An Alabama jury
Tue Feb 19, 2019, 11:53 PM
Feb 2019

awarded him $500K. The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the $500K verdict.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39

struggle4progress

(118,379 posts)
4. From Brennan's opinion:
Wed Feb 20, 2019, 12:12 AM
Feb 2019

... Respondent L. B. Sullivan is one of the three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. He testified that he was "Commissioner of Public Affairs, and the duties are supervision of the Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Cemetery and Department of Scales" ...

Respondent's complaint alleged that he had been libeled by statements in a full-page advertisement that was carried in the New York Times on March 29, 1960 ...

Of the 10 paragraphs of text in the advertisement, the third and a portion of the sixth were the basis of respondent's claim of libel. They read as follows:

Third paragraph: "In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang 'My Country, 'Tis of Thee' on the State Capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school, and truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to reregister, their dining hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into submission."

Sixth paragraph: "Again and again, the Southern violators have answered Dr. King's peaceful protests with intimidation and violence. They have bombed his home, almost killing his wife and child. They have assaulted his person. They have arrested him seven times -- for 'speeding,' 'loitering' and similar 'offenses.' And now they have charged him with 'perjury' -- a felony under which they could imprison him for ten years ..."

Although neither of these statements mentions respondent by name, he contended that the word "police" in the third paragraph referred to him as the Montgomery Commissioner who supervised the Police Department ...

It is uncontroverted that some of the statements contained in the two paragraphs were not accurate descriptions of events which occurred in Montgomery. Although Negro students staged a demonstration on the State Capitol steps, they sang the National Anthem and not "My Country, 'Tis of Thee." Although nine students were expelled by the State Board of Education, this was not for leading the demonstration at the Capitol, but for demanding service at a lunch counter in the Montgomery County Courthouse on another day ... Dr. King had not been arrested seven times, but only four ...

On the premise that the charges in the sixth paragraph could be read as referring to him, respondent was allowed to prove that he had not participated in the events described ...

Respondent made no effort to prove that he suffered actual pecuniary loss as a result of the alleged libel ...

The trial judge submitted the case to the jury under instructions that the statements in the advertisement were "libelous per se," and were not privileged, so that petitioners might be held liable if the jury found that they had published the advertisement and that the statements were made "of and concerning" respondent ...

We reverse the judgment. We hold that the rule of law applied by the Alabama courts is constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct ...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/#tab-opinion-1944787

struggle4progress

(118,379 posts)
5. Thomas Attacks the Press
Wed Feb 20, 2019, 12:17 AM
Feb 2019

By Noah Feldman
February 19, 2019, 1:49 PM EST

... Before the decision, libel law was purely a state-law issue. In general, there was no difference between a libel suit by a public official or an ordinary civilian. Thomas wants to go back to that world.

The court’s opinion in New York Times v. Sullivan, written by the great liberal Justice William Brennan, changed all that. The court held that a public official could only sue for libel if the defamatory statement about the official was made with actual malice — that is, the person doing the libeling actually knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded its falsehood ...

The point of the rule — and the reason it is so foundational for modern freedom of the press — is that the decision aims to insulate news reporters and media organizations from intimidation by powerful or rich public figures seeking to exploit minor errors in reporting ...

An attack on the New York Times v. Sullivan case is .. an attack on the media ...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-19/justice-thomas-contradicts-himself-in-attack-on-press-libel-law

struggle4progress

(118,379 posts)
6. Thomas Wants to Make It Easier to Sue for Libel
Wed Feb 20, 2019, 12:20 AM
Feb 2019

Ed Kilgore

Justice Clarence Thomas is a self-isolating eccentric, but still, his latest move would have provoked head-scratching from legal analysts in normal times. Thomas chose to concur with a Supreme Court order dismissing a petition to rehear the facts of a libel case with a long and angry call for reversal of the Court’s main precedent governing such cases. He excoriated the line of decisions flowing from the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case as “policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.” So Thomas would get rid of the long-established principle that public figures have to establish “actual malice” to win libel suits, including but not limited to cases involving the press ...

Though less explicit than Thomas’s opinion, Trump’s blasts at press freedom were very much aimed at the Sullivan decision, which overturned an Alabama libel award against the New York Times for publishing an ad attacking that state’s racist public officials, as, well, racist public officials. The Court at that time made it clear that protecting freedom of speech and of the press required insulating critics of public figures from suits that might expose them to disastrous legal liability for debatable errors in facts published in good faith (particularly when, as in the Sullivan case, aggrieved parties could find sympathetic venues almost certain to support libel actions) ...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/thomas-wants-to-dump-protections-against-libel-suits.html

struggle4progress

(118,379 posts)
7. Thomas Says Court Should Reverse Landmark Libel Ruling
Wed Feb 20, 2019, 12:23 AM
Feb 2019

By Greg Stohr
February 19, 2019, 1:32 PM EST

... Thomas’s position aligns him at least to some degree with President Donald Trump, who has called for overhauling the country’s libel laws to make it easier to sue.

Thomas, 70, has long stood out for his willingness to discard decades-old legal assumptions. In 1992 Thomas questioned whether the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment applied to prisoner abuse. In 2004 he wrote that the Constitution’s prohibition on government establishment of religion restricts only federal officials, not the states ...

Trump, who frequently attacks the news media as dishonest, called for a "strong look at our country’s libel laws" in January 2018 after the publication of a book depicted him as an inept leader of a dysfunctional White House.

During his campaign in February 2016 Trump said a rally, “We’re going to open up libel laws and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-19/thomas-says-supreme-court-should-reverse-landmark-libel-ruling?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&cmpId=google

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Here's the ad that led to...