General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRon DeSantis's plan to strip First Amendment rights from the press, explained
Floridas Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis wants to eliminate the First Amendment safeguards that prevent lawsuits seeking to strong-arm the press into silence.
Hes been very clear about this goal: In February, DeSantis led a roundtable discussion brainstorming ideas to weaken the presss First Amendment protections. Flanked by a panel dominated by defamation plaintiffs and lawyers, the Orbánesque governor attacked the Supreme Courts landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) for, in his words, empowering a media that will find a way to smear you.
Sullivan was a historic decision establishing that the government (and, in many cases, private litigants) may not censor the media, political advocates, and the public at large through defamation suits intended to shut down dissenting voices. The case arose out of a Jim Crow-era officials attempt to silence civil rights protesters. It established that someone accused of making false claims about a public figure regarding a matter of public concern may not be held liable for defamation, unless the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
Without Sullivan, government officials could potentially use defamation suits to impose financially devastating liability on their political enemies which is what an Alabama official tried to do in Sullivan itself. And a wealthy individual who disagrees with a newspapers coverage could potentially fund lawsuits targeting any false statement made by that newspaper, no matter how minor, until the sheer cost of defending against these suits bankrupts the paper.
Much of DeSantiss February event consisted of the governor asking the panelists for proposals to make it easier to prevail in lawsuits against the press. Their ideas ranged from requiring losing defamation defendants to pay for the plaintiffs lawyers, to limiting the types of defendants who can invoke Sullivan, to blatantly unconstitutional proposals to eliminate Sullivans protections and replace them with much weaker safeguards for free speech.
https://www.vox.com/politics/23622299/ron-desantis-first-amendment-press-new-york-times-v-sullivan
Unconstitutional right down the line, but as noted in the article, both Thomas and Gorsuch are in favor!
ZonkerHarris
(24,156 posts)TheRealNorth
(9,435 posts)FakeNoose
(32,356 posts)No matter what it costs, he should never be elected Potus.
Sympthsical
(8,936 posts)And yes, the Court put a ridiculously high bar on what public officials can sue for.
And rightly so.
Funnily enough, Sullivan wasn't even mentioned in the NYT article he sued about. His beef was even worse. "If you defame people who are my subordinates, you're defaming me." Just think of the implications of that shit had it been left in place. Which the Alabama Supreme Court did at the time.
DBoon
(22,288 posts)Isn't this how Peter Thiel destroyed Gawker?
Chainfire
(17,308 posts)can I take from you next" theme.