Supreme Court Justice Questions Landmark Ruling from Alabama

 ========= Old Image Removed =========Array
(
    [_wp_attached_file] => Array
        (
            [0] => 2019/03/7432022562_a1a01ce5a2_Supreme-Court.jpg
        )

    [_wp_attachment_metadata] => Array
        (
            [0] => a:5:{s:5:"width";i:500;s:6:"height";i:332;s:4:"file";s:47:"2019/03/7432022562_a1a01ce5a2_Supreme-Court.jpg";s:5:"sizes";a:6:{s:6:"medium";a:4:{s:4:"file";s:47:"7432022562_a1a01ce5a2_Supreme-Court-336x223.jpg";s:5:"width";i:336;s:6:"height";i:223;s:9:"mime-type";s:10:"image/jpeg";}s:9:"thumbnail";a:4:{s:4:"file";s:47:"7432022562_a1a01ce5a2_Supreme-Court-140x140.jpg";s:5:"width";i:140;s:6:"height";i:140;s:9:"mime-type";s:10:"image/jpeg";}s:9:"wbhm-icon";a:4:{s:4:"file";s:45:"7432022562_a1a01ce5a2_Supreme-Court-80x80.jpg";s:5:"width";i:80;s:6:"height";i:80;s:9:"mime-type";s:10:"image/jpeg";}s:18:"wbhm-featured-home";a:4:{s:4:"file";s:47:"7432022562_a1a01ce5a2_Supreme-Court-468x311.jpg";s:5:"width";i:468;s:6:"height";i:311;s:9:"mime-type";s:10:"image/jpeg";}s:22:"wbhm-featured-carousel";a:4:{s:4:"file";s:47:"7432022562_a1a01ce5a2_Supreme-Court-399x265.jpg";s:5:"width";i:399;s:6:"height";i:265;s:9:"mime-type";s:10:"image/jpeg";}s:14:"post-thumbnail";a:4:{s:4:"file";s:47:"7432022562_a1a01ce5a2_Supreme-Court-125x125.jpg";s:5:"width";i:125;s:6:"height";i:125;s:9:"mime-type";s:10:"image/jpeg";}}s:10:"image_meta";a:12:{s:8:"aperture";s:1:"0";s:6:"credit";s:0:"";s:6:"camera";s:0:"";s:7:"caption";s:0:"";s:17:"created_timestamp";s:1:"0";s:9:"copyright";s:0:"";s:12:"focal_length";s:1:"0";s:3:"iso";s:1:"0";s:13:"shutter_speed";s:1:"0";s:5:"title";s:0:"";s:11:"orientation";s:1:"0";s:8:"keywords";a:0:{}}}
        )

    [_imagify_data] => Array
        (
            [0] => a:2:{s:5:"sizes";a:1:{s:4:"full";a:2:{s:7:"success";b:0;s:5:"error";s:37:"The backup directory is not writable.";}}s:5:"stats";a:3:{s:13:"original_size";i:0;s:14:"optimized_size";i:0;s:7:"percent";i:0;}}
        )

    [_imagify_status] => Array
        (
            [0] => error
        )

    [_imagify_optimization_level] => Array
        (
            [0] => 0
        )

    [_media_credit] => Array
        (
            [0] => Mark Fischer
        )

    [_navis_media_credit_org] => Array
        (
            [0] =>  Flickr
        )

    [_navis_media_can_distribute] => Array
        (
            [0] => 
        )

)
1656404500 
1551441855

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a defamation case against comedian Bill Cosby. Perhaps more interesting than the rejection was a comment from Justice Clarence Thomas. He wrote the court should re-examine a landmark First Amendment case that originated in Alabama.

In 1960, the New York Times ran an ad from a civil rights group criticizing how authorities treated demonstrators, including those in Montgomery. The ad got some details wrong.

It misstated how many times the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been arrested in Alabama. It mischaracterizes the police response to student protests at the state capitol.

“One of the more petty examples of something not being accurate was [the ad] said that the students had sung ‘My Country ‘Tis of Thee’ on the steps of the Capitol but it was actually the national anthem,” says Steven Brown, an Auburn University political science professor.

Montgomery’s Police Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, argued the errors meant the ad defamed him as a public official. He sued and won a half-million dollar award in Alabama. The case, New York Times v. Sullivan, went on to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a unanimous ruling in 1964, the Supreme Court said it took more than factual errors to constitute libel. You have to show “actual malice.”

“Which the court defined as knowing falsity or reckless disregard of the truth,” Samford University law professor William Ross says.

In other words, the media can’t knowingly print information about a public official that’s wrong or in a way that’s reckless. It’s considered a seminal case ensuring freedom of the press.

Justice Clarence Thomas questioned that precedent. He wrote this libel standard isn’t in the Constitution and that the states are capable of striking the appropriate balance between “public discourse” and “reputational harm.”

Ross says it’s not unusual for justices to publicly call for revisiting precedents, and Thomas’ comments fall in line with how he interprets the Constitution

Thomas’ words have gained extra attention because President Donald Trump on multiple occasions has suggested libel law be rewritten. But Ross says the Sullivan decision is not partisan in its effect.

“Every person at some point has some reason to criticize the government and criticize public officials,” Ross says.

Brown says the case might be reconsidered, but in light of today’s online and social media landscape.

“You have so much more speech that’s out there,” Brown says. “So many more ways that people say unkind and perhaps defamatory things about each other. Should the same standard apply?”

Who is a public figure on Facebook? Who is a publisher on Twitter? Those questions weren’t before the court in the 1960s.

The Sullivan case, along with seven others from Alabama, are highlighted in an exhibit created by Brown. It’s on display at Vulcan Park & Museum through May 9th.

Photo by Mark Fischer

EDITOR NOTE: Vulcan Park & Museum is a sponsor of WBHM programming. WBHM’s news and business departments operate separately.

 

Defense says Combs led ‘swinger’s lifestyle,’ was not coercive

Defense lawyer Marc Agnifilo called the tumultuous relationship between Combs and singer Cassie Ventura "a great modern love story," and sought to dismantle the credibility of key witnesses.

What is birthright citizenship and what happens after the Supreme Court ruling?

Within two hours of a Supreme Court ruling that limits the ability of federal courts to impose universal injunctions, lawyers for immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of their clients.

A fourth judge has blocked a Trump executive order targeting elite law firms

The ruling, involving the firm Susman Godfrey, marks the fourth time out of four that a federal judge has permanently blocked one of Trump's executive orders seeking to punish an elite law firm.

Five academics and former diplomats on U.S. strikes, Iran and stability

What 5 academics and former diplomats told Morning Edition about the U.S. strikes on Iran and fallout with Israel.

What is a universal injunction and how did the Supreme Court limit its use?

Friday's decision stems from President Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship, but the Supreme Court focused on whether lower federal courts have the power to issue nationwide blocks.

Judge orders Abrego Garcia to remain in jail after his lawyers raise deportation concerns

A federal judge agreed to delay Kilmar Abrego Garcia's release after his lawyers pointed to conflicting reports from federal officials about whether he would remain in the U.S. while he awaits trial.

More Front Page Coverage