Clarence Thomas Wants to Go After Freedom of the Press
Clarence Thomas Wants to Go After Freedom of the Press
Amid coverage of his relationships with high-profile conservatives, the Supreme Court justice wants to reconsider a landmark First Amendment cases
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to review a challenge to its landmark New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas has some thoughts.
The 1964 ruling established limits on public officials’ ability to sue on grounds of defamation, as well as the need to prove a standard of “actual malice” by the outlet making the allegedly defamatory statements.
The Supreme Court declined to hear Blankenship v. NBC Universal, LLC, a lawsuit brought by coal magnate Don Blankenship, who in 2015 was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of conspiring to violate safety standards at a Virginia mine where an explosion killed 29 workers. Blankenship was sentenced to a year in prison and fined $250,000. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Blankenship then sued NBC Universal, alleging that the news company had defamed him by describing him as a “felon.” Lower courts ruled that NBC had not acted with “malice” in their statements, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
While Justice Thomas concurred that Blankenship’s case did not require a ruling by the Supreme Court, he called for the justices to review the standard set by New York Times v. Sullivan “in an appropriate case.”
“I continue to adhere to my view that we should reconsider the actual-malice standard,” Thomas wrote,” referencing his previous opinion in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center. “New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” he added, “the actual-malice standard comes at a heavy cost, allowing media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”
The push from Thomas comes amid widespread media reporting on allegations of corruption and improper financial relationships involving the justice. A series of investigations by ProPublica and The New York Times have uncovered unreported gifts, real estate deals, and luxury perks given to Thomas by high-profile conservative figures — many of which were not reported in financial disclosures, or weighed as conflicts of interest in relevant cases.
In April, ProPublica reported on the extent of Thomas’ relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow. The real estate mogul gifted Thomas frequent rides on private jets, vacations to luxury resorts, and trips on his superyachts. Crow also purchased $133,000 in real estate from Thomas, and footed private school tuition bills for a child Thomas was raising.
Subsequent reporting has exposed Thomas’ relationship with other powerful conservative players, including the Koch brothers, oil tycoon Paul “Tony” Novelly, H. Wayne Huizenga, the former owner of the Miami Dolphins, and investor David Sokol.
Thomas has claimed that the omissions from his financial statements were nothing more than oversights and that he had been advised that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”
You're viewing a single thread.
What a disgrace... total garbage human.
Do you even know what the actual malice standard is?
"Actual Malice" is a standard whereby press outlets are protected from printing things that are untrue that cause damages, under certain circumstances.
First, the one being spoken of needs to be a public figure. There are two kinds of public figure: a general purpose public figure is someone who is widely known such as the president of the united states or a famous actor or actress or sports superstar. A limited purpose public figure is someone who injects themselves into a matter of public concern.
Second, we're talking about libel. Since truth is an absolute defense to libel, we're talking about only things that are actually false statements of fact that cause damage to a person.
Third, "false statements of fact" are a very limited subset of things you can say. A statement of fact legally is something that can be known by someone. The constitution broadly protects statements of opinions, so whatever has been said must be a legal statement of fact to be libellous.
Fourth, just stating a "false statement of fact" is not a violation of the tort. Under the law, it must cause damage to the person you said the thing against. If you can't prove damages, you can't prove libel.
Fifth, there's a large number of situations where even if the actual standard doesn't apply and the thing is libel, you can basically get away with saying an untrue statement of fact that causes damages, such as when you're relying on information from the state, or from another authoritative source.
Finally, "Actual malice" means that you can be proven to have had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement, as opposed to just a reckless disregard for the truth of a statement of fact.
There are good reasons to think the actual malice standard isn't really a good thing. Put yourself in the shoes of a person who has been lied about in the media and lost everything. Libel cases are really hard to prosecute, and in places like New York or California, there's also strong anti-SLAPP laws to prevent you from suing someone just to silence them. Then just because you're well-known or because you spoke up about a matter of public concern there is a lower level of protection against things that are false statements of fact that damage you.
You're thinking in a partisan way perhaps, but think about how this applies to Fox News. As long as they can maintain a certain level of plausible deniability they can lie with impunity. "I didn't know for sure it wasn't true" and then they can say whatever they want about you. Are you sure that's what you want? Do you think Fox News should have the "freedom of press" to say things that are false statements of fact about you that damage you because you ended up in a matter of public conern?
I don't think that outrage is reasonable. Even if you don't agree it should be ended, it isn't an outrageous standpoint.
Actual Malice” is a standard whereby press outlets are protected from printing things that are untrue that cause damages, under certain circumstances.
Thats not really what it is.
- Right now, the “actual malice” standard — that public officials and powerful individuals cannot win libel cases without proving that a statement was made with knowing or reckless disregard of its falsity
https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-actual-malice-standard-explained/
we’re talking about only things that are actually false statements of fact
Not necessarily. Anybody can sue anybody over anything. How far that lawsuit goes is another story, and there should be protections from bullshit lawsuits from going anywhere. Because without such protections, debate and free speech can get shut down over fear of being sued for being critical of people.
Finally, “Actual malice” means that you can be proven to have had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement, as opposed to just a reckless disregard for the truth of a statement of fact.
That's not what it means. It means that in an actual malice case, additional requirements are needed. The statement in question has to either be knowingly false OR reckless disregard.
As long as they can maintain a certain level of plausible deniability they can lie with impunity. “I didn’t know for sure it wasn’t true”
That counts as libel in any case, as is under current law.
"I didn't know for sure" is reckless disregard for the truth, which counts as libel even under the actual malice rule.
Getting rid of the requirement doesn't make things any better on this point.
Do you think Fox News should have the “freedom of press” to say things that are false statements of fact about you that damage you because you ended up in a matter of public conern?
They already don't.
it isn’t an outrageous standpoint.
It's an erosion of protections for the press by a corrupt judge. Even if the standpoint itself isn't a big deal (it is, anything changing how 1st amendemnt is implemented is a big deal), the context of Clarence's corruption makes it a big deal.
Outrageous isn't the word to use here. Instead the word is corrupt.
Thank you, a hell of a lot better response than what I would have stated.
This article is just ragebait.
Half the article is about Clarence's corruption.
Why the hell are we letting a corrupt judge decide anything at all related to free speech?
The title is about free speech. The media called him a felon. He is not a felon. That’s easy to fact check and it is damaging to his reputation.
Thomas is correct.
It's not that cut and dry.
The court determined that journalists were confused about the meaning of the term “felon,” which by definition refers to someone convicted of a felony. Although Blankenship was not a “felon,” he was sentenced to serve a one-year sentence in federal prison — a rarity for a misdemeanor offense.
“Blankenship’s prison sentence placed him as close to felony status as possible,” Gregory said, adding that for “non-lawyers” describing Blankenship as a felon was not “inherently improbable,” and there were not “obvious reasons to doubt the veracity” of such a statement.
“Some of the statements may have been the product of carelessness and substandard journalistic methods,” the chief judge wrote. “But at the end of the day, the record does not contain evidence that the commentators and journalists responsible for the statements were anything more than confused about how to describe a person who served a year in prison for a federal offense.”
The active malice rule is put in place to prevent public figures from sueing anybody who even slightly criticizes them. Without the rule, it would dissuade people's free speech to report and comment on these things.
That is some mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion. He was convicted of a misdemeanor. Only an idiot would think that’s a felon.
Thomas is correct. Were let the standard slip to be meaningful.
Freedom is speech is between you and the government. It’s not about people defaming you.
He was convicted of a misdemeanor. Only an idiot would think that’s a felon.
He was in federal prison.
Freedom is speech is between you and the government. It’s not about people defaming you.
You can't have free speech without protections from slapp suits.
Umm.. Where do you think a person goes to serve time if they go to a federal institution?
Free speech is between you and the government. It isn't between you and another party.
Where do you think a person goes to serve time if they go to a federal institution?
Is there somewhere you're going with this?
Free speech is between you and the government. It isn’t between you and another party.
Slapp suits use the government to silence people. I don't know why your bringing this up as if it helps make your case.
Yes there is nothing odd serving a federal sentence in a federal prison. That’s common sense. Where else would they serve their time? A misdemeanor is a year of less. So the sentence would tell you it’s a misdemeanor. Also the paperwork would show its misdemeanor. The crime itself would tell you it’s a misdemeanor.
Where did Thomas mention a slapp suit ?
And no a slapp suit is the the government silencing anymore. Good lord learn how the system works. It’s a civil action between two parties. The government is just enforcing the laws.
This article is just ragebait.
Don't take bribes, don't get accused of corruption. Pretty simple stuff.
Don't make up bullshit excuses to accuse people of corruption. Pretty simple stuff.
He was caught red handed receiving bribes. What are you talking about?
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-documents-conflicts-9fa2847e60e11601c872c3ba3eea12a3
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/aug/10/clarence-thomas-gift-vacation-supreme-court
Sorry, I was using the actual definition of a bribe, not your "everything he ever gets is a bribe" nonsense.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bribe
Fits the bill.
If my workplace can consider gifts higher than $50 dollars as bribes, then I sure as shit can count dozens of vacations and full ride scholarships as bribery. All judges are held to the standard such that this counts as bribery.
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/22/1201154440/clarence-thomas-koch-supreme-court
On top of that, he is in fact a Supreme Court Judge, meaning his rulings effect literally everyone. Any and all gifts towards him absolutely can lead to conflict of interests, as is shown in the above 3 links. That's bribery.
Great write up. Shame like 90% of the people here don't care and would rather just continue to sling ignorant partisan hate
He a corrupt judge making decisions about the legality of topics relating to free speech. That should ring alarm bells for anyone.