#New York Times v. Sullivan

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to revisit the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, rebuffing a request to take another look at decades-old precedent that created a higher bar for public figures to claim libel in civil suits.

The media world has for years relied on the unanimous decision in the 1964 case to fend off costly defamation lawsuits brought by public figures. The ruling established the requirement that public figures show “actual malice” before they can succeed in a libel dispute.

Despite being a mainstay in US media law, the Sullivan decision has increasingly come under fire by conservatives both inside and outside the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who said on Tuesday that he still wanted to revisit Sullivan at some point.

“In an appropriate case, however, we should reconsider New York Times and our other decisions displacing state defamation law,” Thomas wrote in a brief concurrence to the court’s decision not to take up the case. He said that the case, Don Blankenship v. NBC Universal, LLC, was a poor vehicle to reconsider Sullivan.

Just a few months ago, the conservative justice attacked the ruling in Sullivan in a fiery dissent in which he called it “flawed.” Thomas issued other public critiques of Sullivan in recent years, including in 2019, when he wrote that the ruling and “the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.”

The case at hand concerns Don Blankenship, a former coal baron who was convicted of a federal conspiracy offense related to a deadly 2010 explosion at a mine he ran, in what was one of the worst US mine disasters in decades. His sentence of a year in prison was one day less than a felony sentence.

“Blankenship himself admits this was a highly unusual sentence for a misdemeanor offense; he notes that he was the only inmate at his prison who was not serving a sentence for a felony conviction,” according to a lower-court opinion in the case.

During his unsuccessful 2018 US Senate campaign in West Virginia, a number of media organizations erroneously reported that he was a convicted felon, even though his conspiracy offense was classified as a misdemeanor.

Blankenship sued a slew of news outlets for the error, alleging defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Lower courts ruled against him, finding that the outlets did not make the statements with actual malice, the standard required by Sullivan.

Attorneys for Blankenship told the justices in court papers that the “damage was irreparable” since no felon has ever been elected to the Senate, and urged them to overturn the Sullivan decision.

“The actual malice standard poses a clear and present danger to our democracy,” they wrote. “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and its progeny grant the press a license to publish defamatory falsehoods that misinform voters, manipulate elections, intensify polarization, and incite unrest.”

Attorneys for the media outlets urged the justices not to take up the case, arguing that it’s “as poor a vehicle as one could imagine to consider” questions related to Sullivan’s holding because, they said, the reporting mistakes were honest ones.

“There is good reason why the actual malice standard of New York Times has been embraced for so long and so often,” the media organizations told the justices. “At its essence, the standard protects ‘erroneous statements honestly made.’ While it permits recovery for falsehoods uttered with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, it provides the ‘breathing space’ required for ‘free debate.’ A free people engaged in self-government deserves no less.”

Just last year the court declined to revisit Sullivan in a case brought by a not-for-profit Christian ministry against the Southern Poverty Law Center.

At the time, Thomas dissented from the court’s refusal to take up the case.

“I would grant certiorari in this case to revisit the ‘actual malice’ standard,” he wrote. “This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”

In 2021, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch also questioned the decision in Sullivan, writing in a dissent when the court decided not to take up a defamation case that the 1964 ruling should be revisited in part because it “has come to leave far more people without redress than anyone could have predicted.”

[filosofablogger]

We The People v Fox 'News' Corporation

During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the New York Times published an ad for contributing donations to defend Martin Luther King, Jr., on perjury charges. The ad contained several minor factual inaccuracies. The city Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, felt that the criticism of his subordinates reflected on him, even though he was not mentioned in the ad. Sullivan sent a written…

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

On May 20th, 1927, Charles Lindbergh took to the skies of New York almost entirely unknown, and 33½ hours later landed in Paris the most famous man in the world, the first to fly solo across the Atlantic.

A crowd of 150,000 people greeted him there, causing the biggest traffic jam in France's history. They dragged him from the cockpit of The Spirit of Saint Louis and paraded him around on their shoulders for more than half an hour, while others stripped the plane bare of souvenirs. After patching it up again, he flew to Belgium and then London, where similar scenes unfolded and he was taken first to visit the Prime Minister and then King George V, who awarded him the Air Force Cross.

Then the President of the US sent a navy cruiser to pick him up and take him back home to America, a fleet of warships escorting him up the Potomac River to the Washington Navy Yard, where President Calvin Coolidge awarded him the Distinguished Flying Cross. From there back home to New York on June 13, where a ticker tape parade awaited him like few others and 4 million people turned out to see him.

It certainly was a busy old month for Charley Lindbergh, Time Magazine's first ever 'Man of The Year".

The winner of the 1930 Best Woman Aviator of the Year Award, Elinor Smith Sullivan, said that before Lindbergh's flight:

"People seemed to think we [aviators] were from outer space or something. But after Charles Lindbergh's flight, we could do no wrong. It's hard to describe the impact Lindbergh had on people. Even the first walk on the moon doesn't come close. The twenties was such an innocent time, and people were still so religious—I think they felt like this man was sent by God to do this."

[girlactionfigure]

ISRAEL REALTIME - "Connecting the World to Israel in Realtime"

▪️IDF ATTACKING SOUTH GAZA… (enemy reports) Unofficial enemy channels report that maneuvering forces of the IDF have already reached the following areas in the Khan Yunis south Gaza district: Bani Suheila, Qarara, Western a-Satr, Eastern a-Satr, Abasan.   Of the advance of the maneuvering IDF forces - the direction of the advance is from north to south, the forces that were stationed in the center of the Gaza Strip in the area of Deir al-Balah and north of Qarara are now moving south to the eastern Khan Yunis area and the Khan Yunis city area.

▪️ISRAEL TO FLOOD TUNNELS?  Wall Street Journal: Israel built a system of five huge pipes to flood the Hamas tunnels with sea water.  However, according to the report, it has not yet been decided in Israel whether to carry out the operation.

▪️U.S. STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS TO CNN & NEW YORK TIMES, SUPPORTING TERROR ILLEGAL… More than a dozen U.S. state attorneys general signed a letter to media outlets The New York Times, Reuters, AP and CNN putting them "on notice" that providing material  support to terrorist organizations such as Hamas is illegal. "We will continue to follow your reporting to ensure that your organizations do not violate any federal or state laws by giving material support to terrorists abroad. Now your organizations are on notice. Follow the law.”

▪️5 FALL FROM ONE YESHIVA… the hesder yeshiva in Yeruham has lost 5 rabbinical student-soldiers in the war, 2 fell yesterday in Gaza.

▪️MAKING THE HOUTHIS A WORLD PROBLEM… White House National Security Advisor: “ The US is consulting with its allies to find an appropriate response to the Yemeni attacks against ships."  He added there are "intensive consultations" with ally nations about potential responses.  "We are going to take appropriate action in consultation with others.” Sullivan said. One potential "natural" next step to support commercial and military vessels in the Middle East would be "maritime task forces," the national security advisor said. These would be international coalitions of ships accompanying one another when they pass through potentially dangerous areas.  "We said that the whole world, not just the US, must face this emerging threat of the Houthis."

▪️NEW “BOMB” SPOTTED FROM ISRAEL… Photos of airstrikes in Gaza have spotted a new bomb shape in use, identified as the Smart Precise Impact Cost-Effective (SPICE) guidance kit for converting unguided bombs in precision-guide munitions - and is developed by Israel (Rafael industries).  The photos showed the SPICE-2000, a kit added to 2,000 pound / 900 kg warhead bombs - meaning this is extremely destructive.  It is particularly specialized in penetrating hardened targets such as weapons storage facilities.  For reference, the Hezbollah “very large” rocket is a 400 kg warhead, and suicide drones have a 90 kg warhead.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spice_(bomb).  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj60a483-9k

[beardedmrbean]

Oct 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a bid by a prominent former West Virginia mining company executive to make it easier for public figures to sue for defamation in a case that challenged longstanding protections for news organizations.

The justices turned away former Massey Energy CEO Donald Blankenship's appeal of a lower court's decision throwing out his defamation lawsuit against media outlets including Fox News and MSNBC for characterizing him as a "felon" during his unsuccessful 2018 run for the U.S. Senate.

Blankenship was convicted by a jury in 2015 of a federal conspiracy offense that is classified as a misdemeanor, not a felony, after a 2010 mine explosion that killed 29 coal miners.

He had asked the Supreme Court to overturn its unanimous 1964 ruling in a landmark case called New York Times v. Sullivan that set stringent limits on defamation claims by public officials under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and the press.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas in a written opinion agreed with Tuesday's decision to turn away Blankenship's appeal. However, Thomas reiterated his view that the court should reconsider the 1964 precedent in an "appropriate case."

The Supreme Court in that ruling and subsequent decisions set a standard that in order to win a libel suit, a public figure must demonstrate that the offending statement was made with "actual malice," meaning with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false. The court in these rulings aimed to preserve robust public debate and prevent the self-censorship of truthful information out of a fear of expensive lawsuits.

Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch have in recent years raised doubts about the defamation precedents, pointing to a rapidly changing media environment increasingly rife with disinformation.

A jury found Blankenship guilty of a single misdemeanor charge of conspiring to violate federal mine safety standards but did not convict him on related felony charges. Blankenship, who also was fined $250,000, was released from prison in 2017 after serving a one-year sentence.

Blankenship in 2018 sought the Republican nomination in a U.S. Senate race, hoping to unseat Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, but lost his party's primary.

He filed a federal lawsuit in 2019 against numerous news organizations and individual journalists, also including the Washington Post and Boston Globe newspapers, accusing them of defamation for referring to him as a "felon" during coverage of his candidacy. The coverage contributed to his primary defeat, Blankenship claimed in his lawsuit.

A federal judge ruled against Blankenship in 2022, finding that the defendants did not make the statements with actual malice. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against Blankenship in February.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Blankenship's lawyers said that the media is now dominated by a few giant corporations that seek profits ahead of public service.

A fire caused by a methane or natural gas leak likely set off the April 2010 blast at Massey's now-closed Upper Big Branch mine, located about 40 miles (65 km) south of Charleston, West Virginia, according to federal investigators.

The Supreme Court previously rejected Blankenship's appeals seeking to overturn his conviction.

Thomas in 2019 took aim at the 1964 defamation precedent in an opinion he wrote when the court refused to consider reviving a defamation lawsuit against Bill Cosby. Thomas said the precedent was not rooted in the Constitution and that it and the subsequent rulings extending it "were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law." Thomas added that defamation law was historically a matter for the states, and should remain that way.

[newhistorybooks]

"New York Times v. Sullivan is the most important Supreme Court decision about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Samantha Barbas's terrific, riveting book shows that it also must be understood as a crucial decision about civil rights at a crucial moment of the civil rights movement."

[blondesforreagan]

Unprotected Speech is limited to:

The Supreme Court has identified some categories of unprotected and less protected speech where the government has more latitude to regulate than usual under the First Amendment.

Incitement of illegal activity – advocates illegal acts or the overthrow of the government (Schenck v. United States)

Fighting words – speech that is directed at another and likely to provoke a violent response (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire)

Obscenity – material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to the indecent interest (Miller v. California)

Commercial speech – expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience. (Central Hudson. v. Public Service Commission)

Defamatory speech –speech that is injures reputation (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan)

Symbolic speech – conduct that communicates through symbols (such as flag burning) rather than words (United States v. O’Brien)

THE REST: FREE SPEECH

[ravenkings]

As Trump ramps up his 2024 campaign, he is picking up right where he left off. He is running on the same line that the last election was stolen, with a new, base-enraging twist that his political enemies are persecuting him with phony criminal cases over his efforts to force state officials in Georgia to give him the win that voters didn’t; his payoff to the porn star Stormy Daniels; his mishandling of classified documents.

In recent months, Lachlan and Rupert have telegraphed their opposition to Trump and their preference for his leading opponent, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida — most substantially by keeping Trump off their network. But the polls in recent weeks have shown Trump surging. The unofficial embargo broke in late March, when Hannity interviewed Trump in front of a live audience.

The network says it has installed new editorial oversight across all its platforms. But that system will be up against the network’s very nature. The facts are clear to all. “Trump insisting on the election being stolen and convincing 25% of Americans was a huge disservice to the country,” Murdoch wrote to Scott on Jan. 20, 2021, the day Biden became president. “Pretty much a crime. Inevitable it blew up Jan. 6th.” But what will Murdoch and his employees make of the facts? What will happen when everything is on the line again and that audience wants Trump on Trump’s terms again? Fox could deny them. It could promote the truth, inform its viewers and serve the First Amendment role that the justices in Times v. Sullivan so carefully defined and protected. But that might antagonize Trump and his audience. And, at least as Murdoch had explained to Dominion’s lawyers, doing that would be stupid.

–Jim Rutenberg, “How Fox Chased Its Audience Down the Rabbit Hole,” The New York Times Magazine, April 6, 2023

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

UPDATE: Shortly after the publication of this statement, Rep. Andrade withdrew HB 951 and introduced an even worse bill, HB 991, in its place.

HB 991 exacerbates the threats to freedom of expression presented by HB 951. For example, with regard to anonymous sources, HB 991 does not simply presume that statements from anonymous sources are false, as in HB 951. Instead, HB 991 retains that presumption, but also goes further: When the journalist or media outlet refuses to identify an anonymous source, plaintiffs bringing a defamation claim need to prove only that statements from anonymous sources were published negligently, not with actual malice.

FIRE will oppose HB 991 every step of the way.

Statement from FIRE Legislative and Policy Director Joe Cohn

Yesterday, Florida state legislator Rep. Alex Andrade introduced HB 951, a bill that seeks to roll back the protections for free speech secured by one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last six decades: New York Times Company v. Sullivan.

Sullivan has prevented the powerful from using defamation lawsuits to intimidate and silence their critics for more than a half-century. In Sullivan, a decision issued at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, the Supreme Court held that when suing for defamation, public officials must prove the defendant spoke with “actual malice” — that is, the defendant knew his or her words were false, or spoke with reckless disregard for the truth.

Sullivan doesn’t protect deliberate falsehoods. But it does protect our right to speak out about our government and the issues of the day. By ensuring that simple mistakes made in criticizing powerful people and public figures don’t result in a costly, chilling lawsuit, the Sullivan threshold secures vitally important breathing room for public debate.

HB 951 dangerously attacks the protections Sullivan recognized. If passed into law, it would narrow the list of people who may be deemed “public figures,” meaning a wider range of commentary on today’s public issues could result in a successful defamation lawsuit. The bill also declares that speech from anonymous sources will be presumed false, and that failure to “verify or corroborate an alleged defamatory statement” will constitute actual malice. What’s more, the bill proposes awarding costs and attorney’s fees to any plaintiff who wins a defamation suit — making it even riskier for both everyday citizens and the free press to engage with important issues.

If HB 951 becomes law, the result will be far less discussion and debate on matters of public concern, as powerful public figures will be able to bully citizens and critics into silence via costly lawsuits. By presuming anonymous sources are lying, the law would kneecap investigative journalism. And by awarding costs and attorney’s fees to successful plaintiffs, the law would effectively dismantle Florida’s anti-SLAPP law, incentivizing meritless defamation claims and dissuading lawyers from representing defendants who can’t afford counsel.

Passage of this dangerous bill would spell disaster for free speech by constricting the open debate that is critical for a democracy to function.

FIRE will oppose HB 951 every step of the way.

[usafphantom2]

49 years ago today.

On Sep. 1, 1974, Maj. James V. Sullivan and Maj. Noel Widdifield set a new world speed record from New York to London, as our friend Linda Sheffield Miller (Col Richard (Butch) Sheffield’s daughter, Col. Sheffield was an SR-71 Reconnaissance Systems Officer) on her Facebook Page Habubrats. It took less than two hours.

This mission might’ve been the ‘gateway plan’ to have SR-71 stationed in England. The United States was fortunate to be able to house two SR-71s at RAF Mildenhall years later. This was a huge help to have SR-71 in Europe [SR-71 Reconnaissance Operations at RAF Mildenhall was from April 1976 to 1990. Prior to Det 4 being established, UK permission was required for each sortie flown. According to the SR-71 Blackbirds website, the SR-71’s stay would be no longer than 20 days for each visit.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher announced that Det 4 would be a permanent SR-71 Detachment with two aircraft assigned. The UK remained in control of the more sensitive missions. The two aircraft Detachments ceased operations on Nov. 22, 1989. The last aircraft departed the UK on Jan. 18, 1990.

The US Government has given the United Kingdom an SR-71 #962 for public display at Duxford Imperial War Museum for its contribution to ending the Cold War.]. Blackbirds based at Mildenhall could fly around the Baltic Sea and take pictures of potential targets in the Soviet Union using their side-looking cameras [without crossing the Soviet border].

On September 1, 1974 Major James V. Sullivan, 37 (pilot) and Noel F. Widdifield, 33 (reconnaissance systems officer) flashed across the starting line (radar gates in New York) at approximately 80,000 feet and speed in excess of 2,000 miles per hour. Exactly 1 hour 54 minutes and 56.4 seconds later, they had set a new world speed record from New York to London England. The average speed was 1,807 statute mph over the 3,461 statute mile course, slowing to refuel one time from a specially modified KC-135 refueling tanker. The aircraft was placed on static display at Farnborough Air Show for 1 week. It marked the first time the secret plane had been on public display outside of the United States. ”Kelly” Johnson, the aircraft designer, was on hand for the event. He remarked, “It (the SR-71) has exceeded all my expectations.”

Another historic speed record was set on the return trip to the United States. Captain Harold B. Adams, 31 (pilot), and Major William Machorek, 32 (reconnaissance systems operator), set a speed record from London to Los Angeles. They returned the Blackbird 5,447 statute miles in 3 hours 47 minutes and 39 seconds for an average speed of 1,435 miles per hour. The difference in the two speed records was due to refueling requirements and having to slow over major US cities.’

Even so a large number of people in Los Angeles reported broken windows due to the sonic boom. One of those people was actress, Zaza’s Gabor, who complained bitterly about her broken windows. To appease her Captain Adams and Major Machorek went to Zazas Home to apologize. They brought their wives with them. Zaza only allowed the SR-71 Crew to come into her home!

The trip from New York to London 49 years ago became a beautiful friendship between allies, the United States and Great Britain .We both worked hard to win the Cold War. This article was originally in the aviationgeek club written by Linda Sheffield. published by Dario Leone

Artwork by Force Graham

@Habubrats71 via Twitter

[beatjackkerouac]

Great. The far right majority did not undo a very long standing precedent to please Trump. About time. Thomas’ problem will always be that statements about him, like Trump, ads true.

[antonio-velardo]

Antonio Velardo shares: Clarence Thomas Renews Call for Reconsideration of Landmark Libel Ruling by Adam Liptak

By Adam Liptak The justice wrote that the decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, lets news organizations “cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’” Published: October 10, 2023 at 11:47AM from NYT U.S. https://ift.tt/hTpzarc via IFTTT

[ledenews]

West Virginia's Blankenship Continues Fight for Fair Elections

Don Blankenship attempted last week to run several ads on Comcast Cable in Washington DC and West Virginia. These spots highlight the need for New York Times v. Sullivan to be overturned. However, Comcast refused to run these ads. Blankenship said: “The press is controlled by an oligopoly of multinational media conglomerates. New York Times v. Sullivan allows these corporate giants to collude with government officials to defame election candidates and sabotage election outcomes with impunity. Weaponized defamation is extremely injurious to free speech and American democracy.” Blankenship continued: “New York Times v. Sullivan is a protector of corrupt election activity far worse than Watergate. My case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to reject a legal standard that empowers the press to sabotage American elections at the behest of government officials. Fair elections must be safeguarded if American democracy is to survive.” When asked whether he would be a candidate for any public office in 2024, Blankenship responded: “We should know by then whether it remains legal to refer to my opponents as “convicted felon” or even as “pedophiles.” If defamation is not prohibited by the rules of engagement, then perhaps it would be fun to play Senator McConnell’s game.” Blankenship was tacitly reminding us that McConnell posted a tweet that thanked Blankenship for “playing” after the 2018 West Virginia Republican primary election. Polls indicated that Blankenship had surged ahead to a sizeable lead in the polls just days before the primary. McConnell then appealed to Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch for help to defeat Blankenship. Thereafter, multiple Fox News commentators falsely called Blankenship a “convicted felon” on both the eve and the day of the election. Read the full article