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] => 
        )

)
1619343759 
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.

 

Birmingham is 3rd worst in the Southeast for ozone pollution, new report says

The American Lung Association's "State of the Air" report shows some metro areas in the Gulf States continue to have poor air quality.

Why haven’t Kansas and Alabama — among other holdouts — expanded access to Medicaid?

Only 10 states have not joined the federal program that expands Medicaid to people who are still in the "coverage gap" for health care

Once praised, settlement to help sickened BP oil spill workers leaves most with nearly nothing

Thousands of ordinary people who helped clean up after the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico say they got sick. A court settlement was supposed to help compensate them, but it hasn’t turned out as expected.

Q&A: How harm reduction can help mitigate the opioid crisis

Maia Szalavitz discusses harm reduction's effectiveness against drug addiction, how punitive policies can hurt people who need pain medication and more.

The Gulf States Newsroom is hiring a Community Engagement Producer

The Gulf States Newsroom is seeking a curious, creative and collaborative professional to work with our regional team to build up engaged journalism efforts.

Gambling bills face uncertain future in the Alabama legislature

This year looked to be different for lottery and gambling legislation, which has fallen short for years in the Alabama legislature. But this week, with only a handful of meeting days left, competing House and Senate proposals were sent to a conference committee to work out differences.

More Front Page Coverage