San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
Libel ruling ‘one of the bedrocks of free speech’
NEW YORK TIMES VS. SULLIVAN, 1964 Origin:
The Times was sued by Montgomery, Ala., police and fire supervisor Lester B. Sullivan over a full-page advertisement that condemned a police “wave of terror” against civil rights demonstrators. The ad did not name names, but Sullivan argued that the use of word “police” pointed to him. One basis for the lawsuit under Alabama law: several factual errors in a 10-paragraph ad.
Supreme Court ruling: Majority opinion:
9-0 in favor of the Times
The First Amendment was designed to protect “uninhibited, robust and wide open” public debate. Justices rejected the notion that critics of public officials had to guarantee the absolute truth of their statements.
The court ruled that a public official who sued for libel would need to meet a higher threshold than that required of an ordinary citizen. The official would need to show not only damage to his or her reputation, but that the the accusation was made with “actual malice,” meaning “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.”
Extended the higher standard for libel to all public figures.
The precedent:
Subsequent rulings:
Hill, were absolutely relevant to consideration of his nomination for the Supreme Court in 1991.
Scrutiny of the Trump family finances — including an extensive New York Times investigation last year that debunked his claim of being a self-made businessman as well as suspicions that his wealth came in part from dubious tax schemes — are a matter of public interest. So, too, is his involvement in hush-money payments to mistresses that resulted in a prison sentence for his former lawyer Michael Cohen for violation of campaign finance laws.
Absent Times vs. Sullivan, news organizations might be more reticent about pursuing such stories.
“New York Times vs. Sullivan has proven desirable for over a half century,” Chemerinsky said. “No one has pointed to serious problems with its approach. To want to reconsider it now is disturbing.”
For Trump, his posturing on libel laws is merely one example of his unrelenting efforts to delegitimize, if not neuter, the free press. Just last week, he tweeted that the New York Times was “a TRUE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”
For now, at least, Times vs. Sullivan does not appear in imminent danger of being overturned. Even Trump’s most recent high-court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, appeared comfortable with respecting its precedent when asked at his March 2017 confirmation hearing. But this is no cause for complacency. “I find absolutely no comfort whenever a Supreme Court nominee says something is settled law,” Levinson said. “All you need to changed settled law is to get to five votes.”
John Diaz is The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial page editor. Email: jdiaz@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @JohnDiazChron