Justice Clarence Thomas, in agreement with the views expressed on Tuesday, called for the abolition of the decades of jurisprudence, which made it difficult for public figures to file a lawsuit and other organizations for slander – the restrictions that were put forward in his opinion in the series
Thomas expresses the opinion that President Trump has repeatedly called for the facilitation of filing a lawsuit against libel. Last weekend Trump reacted to "Saturday Night Live" about his extraordinary declaration at the southern border, asking on Twitter: "How will the networks with these republican works go unpunished, as well as for many other shows?
And in December last In the year, Trump wrote on Twitter: "It's not ashamed that someone can write an article or book, completely compile stories and create a picture of a person who literally does not know why the Washington policy does not change slander laws?
Trump sought to eliminate the high standard of "real malice" with which politicians must comply in order to prove that they were defamed by the media and other organizations. In his opinion, Thomas widely argued that Trump's burden in such cases was really unfair.
As a rule, in order to prove defamation, an individual must only show that the defendant has negligently failed to exercise due diligence in spreading the evidence, which damaged his reputation. But in 1
The decision of the higher court, which arose on the background of a series of politically motivated lawsuits by southern politicians, unilaterally destroyed the general law
"The general right of slander at the time of the ratification of the First and 14th Amendments did not require state officials to meet any increased standard of responsibility as a condition
When the constitutional basis for its ruling that replaces general law is found, the Sullivan court relied heavily on the opposition of founding parents, including James and Madison, on the Law of the Spell of 1798, which would ban any "false" or "scandalous" acts against civil servants.
According to Thomas, the fact that the creators opposed the criminal punishment for criticizing civil servants did not necessarily mean that they opposed the provision of an affordable remedy for defamation by these policies. In fact, Thomas said, the founders consistently opposed the use of a federal law to block the national law governing the slander at that time.
TRUMP: OUR LIBERAL LAWS ARE "SHAM"
"Far from increasing the burden of a public figure in libel case, general law considered slander on public figures more serious and harmful than ordinary slander" , Thomas wrote. "The death of an official is considered a crime", the most dangerous for the people, and the deprivation of punishment, because people can be fooled and throw the best citizens to their great trauma, and this may be with the loss of their freedoms
Thomas added : "Madison seemed to have conceived that" those who run [the federal government] "preserve" the means for their victim's reputation, according to the same laws, and in the same tribunals that protect their lives, freedoms and their properties … In short, it seems that there is little historical evidence that The New York Times rule stems from the initial understanding of the first or the 14th amendment. "
In the absence of Thomas, the Supreme Court did not have any case regarding the law on defamation at the state level.
Tom's conclusion came in the uncanny case, when the supreme court dismissed the appeal of actress Catherine McKee, who said that the comic icon Bill Cosby raped her in 1974. McCee sued Cosby for damaging his reputation after a lawyer comedian allegedly leaked from a letter attacking McCain. Two lower court courts ruled against it and rejected the case, largely based on the role of McCoy as a public figure.
No other justice has joined Thomas's thought on Tuesday, and it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the call
But Thomas's thought may have been an attempt to signal to other groups that Sullivan's litigation was delayed, against a background of ever-changing media environment in which information travels faster than ever before. One of the main reasons for the establishment of a higher bar for public officials to sue for defamation is their perceived ability to quickly dismantle misinformation on their own – the ability of some observers to quench at the age of blogging and around the clock
Thomas is not the only outstanding conservative justice to express contempt for Sullivan's decision. The last judge Antonin Skalia publicly opposed the court's decision in this case, stating that it was disgusting and constitutionally groundless.
CLICK TO GET FOX NEWS APP
which, it would seem, also served as signals. In support of the restrained Tramp travel ban, Thomas wrote that national bans issued by individual federal judges "have an impact on the federal judiciary – preventing legal issues through federal courts, encouraging bidding at forums, and in each case triggering emergency situations at the national level
In Thought on Tuesday, Thomas suggested that federal judges coincide with defamation cases.
Bill Miares and Associated Press contributed to this report