Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas announced on Monday that he intends to revoke the 1964 ruling that makes it difficult to sue the media for defamation.
Conservative justice, one of the five votesvs., overturns the groundbreaking abortion that ruled the Roe v. Wade caseon Friday. To hear the case filed by the Christian Group, who sued the Southern Poverty Law Center, issued a dissenting opinion after the High Court refused.
Coral Ridge Ministries Media has filed a proceeding against SPLC, the left-wing guard dog, after labeling the Christian organization as a hatred group.
The proceedings sought to overturn the precedent set by the New York Times vs. Sullivan. This is a 1964 proceeding in which civil servants set high standards for defamation.
"In this case, allow discretionary appeal to reconsider the criteria for" actual malice ""Thomas wrote in disagreement.
"This case has many indications that the New York Times and its descendants have" allowed the media organizations and stakeholders to "throw false attacks on nearly exempt public figures." It is one of the cases.
Thomas writes:
"Place Coral Ridge on an interactive online" Hatred Map " Excluding the Coral Ridge from the Amazon Smile Donation Program caused specific financial damage.
Justice continued: "Nevertheless, the" almost impossible "actual malice standards imposed by this court could not be met, and Coral Ridge was maintained by SPLC. I couldn't explain what I was doing as an explicit falsehood.
Another conservative justice, Neil Gorsuch, agreed with Thomas' view that the New York Times vs. Sullivan needs to be revisited.
The Supreme Court found in 1964 that the Alabama Federal District Court found that the New York Times civil rights ad had damaged the reputation of the Alabama Sheriff identified by the implications of the ad. Sullivan has been decided.
Sullivan has established higher standards for civil servants and public figures to prove defamation of personality.
They would have to prove the actual malice on the part of the accused defamation that the publication acted "recklessly ignoring the truth."
Last year, Thomas called on his colleagues on the bench. Consider the criteria for "actual malice" after the court refuses to file a similar proceeding.
The son of the former Prime Minister of Albania sued the author and publisher of the book that was the basis of the movie "War Dogs," which tells a story about an international arms dealer.
Plaintiff Schkelzen Berisha wrote writer Guy Lawson, "Weapons and Men: How Three Miami Beach Stoners Became the Most unlikely Gun Runners in History." A trade that accused him of being mistakenly linked to an illegal weapon.
"The lack of historical support for this court's actual malice requirements is sufficient reason to reconsider the court's doctrine," Thomaswrote in a 2021 opinion. increase.
"Because of the real-world influence of the doctrine, our rethinking is increasingly needed. Lies, public or private, do real harm. . "
with post wire
