Free speech, press guarantees protect public
Q: President Donald Trump recently repeated a campaign pledge to make it easier for people to sue news organizations and publishers for defamation, denouncing the country’s libel laws as a “sham.” What’s the standard for a public figure or public official to be able to prove a defamation claim against the publishers of critical statements?
A: In 1964, the United States
Supreme Court ruled that the
Constitution guarantees a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless the official proves that the false statement was made with “actual malice” — that is with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.
The test “is a subjective one,” measured by the actual state of mind of the publisher, not by what a reasonably prudent publisher would’ve done.
Q: Why does the Constitution provide this type of protection rather than allowing public officials to successfully assert defamation claims for any publication that they contend is false?
A: The free speech and press guarantees protect the public by allowing issues to be freely and vigorously discussed and such protection is necessary for an effective democracy. Thomas Jefferson once said: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I shouldn’t hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” The Supreme Court has explained that expression on public issues “has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” because there is a “profound national commitment” to the principle that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, wide-open” and “Speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it’s the essence of self-government.” It determined that this free debate is necessary even if it includes caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government officials.
Q: What could happen if those protections were removed?
A: It would lead to a chilling effect on political debate out of concern that contrary or unpopular views may be stifled by the threat that a jury may disagree with the statement. Even President Trump has recognized the concern about lessening the protection when he joked in a prior interview that he personally might get sued a lot more if the libel laws were loosened. For example, he may have been sued for his comments that President Barack Obama was born in Africa and that the father of Senator Ted Cruz had aided the assassination of John F. Kennedy.