Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Justice Thomas calls for reexamining landmark libel decision in case involving Cosby accuser
Justice Thomas calls for reexamining landmark libel decision in case involving Cosby accuser
Link to tweet
Courts & Law
Justice Thomas calls for reexamining landmark libel decision in case involving Cosby accuser
By Robert Barnes
Reporter covering the U.S. Supreme Court
February 19 at 10:59 AM
Justice Clarence Thomas called Tuesday for reconsidering the Supreme Court’s landmark decision making it more difficult for public officials to claim defamation as the court turned down a request from an accuser of Bill Cosby. ... The court declined to take the case of Kathrine McKee, who accused Cosby of raping her more than 40 years ago. She sued after Cosby’s attorney leaked a letter that she said distorted her background to “damage her reputation for truthfulness and honesty” and to shame her.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit said McKee had “thrust” herself into the national “#metoo” movement with her allegations. As a public figure, the court said she had to show that comments about her were made with “actual malice” and disregard for the truth, the standard set by the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.
Thomas said he agreed with his colleagues not to accept McKee’s “factbound” appeal. ... But he launched a detailed critique of the landmark libel ruling, which he said was a “policy-driven” decision “masquerading as constitutional law.” No other justice joined his concurrence.
[The disconnect between President Trump and his administration on freedom of the press]
But President Trump has also expressed support for making it easier to sue for defamation, most often directing criticism at the news media. Over the weekend, he complained about a “Saturday Night Live” skit, and wondered about “retribution.” ... Thomas said the court may have intruded into a space in which it was not needed with the New York Times decision. ... “We should not continue to reflexively apply this policy driven approach to the Constitution,” Thomas wrote. “Instead, we should carefully examine the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we.”
....
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow https://twitter.com/scotusreporter
Justice Thomas calls for reexamining landmark libel decision in case involving Cosby accuser
By Robert Barnes
Reporter covering the U.S. Supreme Court
February 19 at 10:59 AM
Justice Clarence Thomas called Tuesday for reconsidering the Supreme Court’s landmark decision making it more difficult for public officials to claim defamation as the court turned down a request from an accuser of Bill Cosby. ... The court declined to take the case of Kathrine McKee, who accused Cosby of raping her more than 40 years ago. She sued after Cosby’s attorney leaked a letter that she said distorted her background to “damage her reputation for truthfulness and honesty” and to shame her.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit said McKee had “thrust” herself into the national “#metoo” movement with her allegations. As a public figure, the court said she had to show that comments about her were made with “actual malice” and disregard for the truth, the standard set by the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.
Thomas said he agreed with his colleagues not to accept McKee’s “factbound” appeal. ... But he launched a detailed critique of the landmark libel ruling, which he said was a “policy-driven” decision “masquerading as constitutional law.” No other justice joined his concurrence.
[The disconnect between President Trump and his administration on freedom of the press]
But President Trump has also expressed support for making it easier to sue for defamation, most often directing criticism at the news media. Over the weekend, he complained about a “Saturday Night Live” skit, and wondered about “retribution.” ... Thomas said the court may have intruded into a space in which it was not needed with the New York Times decision. ... “We should not continue to reflexively apply this policy driven approach to the Constitution,” Thomas wrote. “Instead, we should carefully examine the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we.”
....
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow https://twitter.com/scotusreporter
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
