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] => 
        )

)
1656287018 
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.

 

Are you a military veteran who has been charged money to apply for VA benefits?

If you're a veteran who has been charged a fee to get help on your application for a VA disability rating or other benefits, NPR wants to hear from you!

As Anna Wintour shifts her focus, ‘Vogue’ is looking for a new U.S. editor

Vogue magazine in the U.S. will soon have a new editorial head. Anna Wintour announced that, after nearly 40 years in the position, she will be focus on her wider roles at Vogue and Condé Nast.

Asked to flag ‘negative’ National Park content, visitors gave their own 2 cents instead

Signs installed earlier in National Parks earlier in June asked for feedback on signs "that are negative about past or living Americans." Comments viewed by NPR didn't provide the requested feedback.

Trump still would have won in 2024 even if everyone had turned out to vote, Pew finds

In 2024, 64% of the eligible-voting population turned out, the second highest in 120 years. New data show that even if all those voters who stayed home had voted, Trump would still be president today.

RFK Jr.’s vaccine advisers raise disproven fears about the preservative thimerosal

The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted on the flu vaccine, raising concerns about a rarely used preservative. Medical groups worry this will "sow distrust" in vaccines.

How does President Trump make his money? Real estate, hospitality and his name

President Trump's financial disclosure shows more than $630 million in income from 2024 including tens of millions from cryptocurrency and Trump-branded products touted on the campaign trail.

More Front Page Coverage