4 ms·
No, you don't. You want an aggrieved party to be able to pursue for defamation, which is quite tough for public figures in the United States after Sullivan. Thi
by jsmthrowaway 10y ago
No, you don't. You want an aggrieved party to be able to pursue for defamation, which is quite tough for public figures in the United States after Sullivan. This is what 'danso (who would know) is talking about upthread; I agree with him that specifically named figures in these stories would likely have a quite strong case for libel if they can prove intent, what Sullivan calls actual malice. The article runs a very long way toward showing actual malice itself, so deposition will likely end this guy. These civil cases succeed, too. Rolling Stone lost more than once after the Erdely affair.
What you are otherwise proposing with the call for jailing is criminal prosecution -- as in, the state, prosecuting a citizen -- for what we would tend to call "free speech." Don't propose that, particularly with the incoming administration.
- bluejekyll 10y agoI don't know. Calling into question and misleading voters with fabricated information about a crime that didn't happen under the auspices of a legitimate news source? I hear you on first amendment concerns, definitely. And generally suing where there is a party that has been harmed is generally the right recourse. But in this case it's generally the, American voter...
- jsmthrowaway 10y agoBut when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas. -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., dissenting in an important free speech case, Abrams v. United States, 1919. I quote him intentionally because litigating restraint on free speech (as you're doing here) was delicate enough to make him evolve his opinion. Those cases were over much more serious circumstances than reputation, too. I suggest reading more about it, because you'll get more out of it than I could offer. Bringing things back to relevance, any future where the subject of this article ends up prosecuted by the state and imprisoned is not a future anyone should request. Them's super duper bad steps to take, yo, and the United States was specifically founded in defiance of such things being routinely prosecuted by the Crown. Yes, even "Bill Clinton hangs out with pedophiles" is something we must tolerate, because the alternative is far, far worse. Let Bill Clinton sue and keep the state out of it.
- losteverything 10y ago<was delicate enough to make him change his mind. More please. Changed from what to what?
- jsmthrowaway 10y agoI reworded that for the very reason you asked the question. Sorry. Schenck v. United States and then Abrams v. United States is what I'm referring to; he didn't change his mind, but there was a clear evolution of thinking around free speech even between those two cases and among his fellow justices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger discusses it.
- losteverything 10y agoI know this isn't the place but I'll ask any way. Where can a novice get good reads on court cases? Somewhat complex but not overfilled with legal gobblygook. I really enjoy bloombergs law segments, for example.
- bluejekyll 10y agoAs you seem to have such a strong handle on the law around this area. I have a question, what makes false advertising not protected speech? And what do you see as the difference between false advertising and fake news (where at the time of the writing is known to be false)? And no, I'm not referring to things that are clearly written for comedy or satire like the Onion, which is clearly protected speech and should be.