Clarence Thomas Wants to Loosen Up the Rules Surrounding Libel
It’s a really sad state of affairs when I dive into the news every day and, instead of being shocked and appalled by the latest massacres by Russia in Ukraine and Hamas in Israel, I find myself giggling at the latest Republican folly. Like firing their Speaker and paralyzing the House at a critical time. Or Tommy “no one gets a promotion until abortion is banned in the military” Tuberville filing a police report over a tweet because he feels threatened. I know what you’re thinking and you’re right. These guys can dish it out, but they can’t take it. The latest cause of my mirth is Justice Clarence Thomas concurring on an opinion and saying that the libel decision governing public figures should be reconsidered. Gee, I wonder why? Do you suppose that it has anything to do with the accusations of ethics violations against the thin-skinned justice? Before we get into that, let’s take a look at the libel decision that is giving Thomas heartburn. It’s New York Times v. Sullivan from 1964. It makes it difficult for public figures to prevail in libel lawsuits. The plaintiffs must prove that the defendants acted with “actual malice.” “Actual malice” is defined as either a defendant knowing what was said was false or that they acted with “reckless disregard.” “Reckless disregard” is defined as the defendant had serious doubts about the validity of the statement in question. So, I’m trying to figure out what Thomas thinks is wrong here. The ethics violations that have been made public are not false, so “actual malice” doesn’t apply. And the media outlets who reported them sincerely believed them to be true, so “reckless disregard” doesn’t apply either. Clarence, sweetheart, this isn’t elementary school where you run to the teacher in tears and accuse the New York Times or the Washington Post of being mean to you on the playground. They’re not being mean. They are just exposing what you have wanted to hide for years.
0 Comments