First Amendment history hurts Fox News: How precedent helps … – Salon
If no settlement can be reached in Dominion Voting Systems' $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, the ensuing trial will prove to be one of the most important in the history of First Amendment law. On Sunday, the start of the trial was delayed by 24 hours, and reports of a possible settlement spread.
Defamation cases are notoriously difficult to win against media outlets because the plaintiffs must prove both that a claim was false and that it was made with "actual malice" that is, either"with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In this case, a number of factors favor Dominion. First, because Fox News' claims that Dominion had rigged the 2020 election against then-President Donald Trump were false, as withthe other tenets of the Big Lie, Davis ruled that Dominion only needs to prove that Fox News acted with "actual malice." Second, there is a wealth of evidencethat the key figures at Fox News knew that their public accusations against Dominion were false, yet made them despite that knowledge to please their audience. Finally, Fox News has already been scolded by the judgefor withholding important information about the title of board member Rupert Murdoch.
It is easy, amidst the high drama of a landmark free speech case, to lose sight of how we got where we are. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So what does it mean to "abridg[e] the freedom of... the press"? How can courts and policymakers remain faithful to the Constitution while protecting those who may be wronged by a dishonest or corrupt media outlet?
In this case, a number of factors favor Dominion.
Below are some key cases from American history that either have helped shape how that question is answered or which help illustrate the nuances of First Amendment law.
When Salon reached out to Leonard M. Niehoff, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School who specializes in the First Amendment, he replied that "it's tempting to answer your question not by citing three cases but by suggesting reading Sullivan three times. The decision casts a lot of light on the Dominion case."
Niehoff is alluding to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,a landmark Supreme Court decision that simultaneously protected America's free press and stopped white supremacists from using frivolous litigation to silence their critics. The case's roots can be traced back to 1960 when The New York Times ran a full-page piece by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s supporters that criticized the police in Montgomery, Alabama for engaging in racist violence against civil rights protesters. White supremacists often responded to critical newspaper coverage by filing frivolous defamation lawsuits, usually by nitpicking an article's factual errors and suing to intimidate publishers into not running pro-civil rights content.
On this occasion, however, the wealthy right-wingers who lined up to back Montgomery police commissioner L. B. Sullivan's intimidatory litigation found their money was wasted. Despite winning early trials due to pro-Southern audiences that were openly hostile to civil rights first in an Alabama jury trial, then with the Supreme Court of Alabama the segregationists were shocked when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against them in 1964. It found that in order to sustain a defamatory accusation, the plaintiffs must prove that the claim was false and that the individual(s) making it did so with either "actual malice" or recklessly.
Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe toSalon's weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.
"Consider: Sullivan seeks to create room for the media to make good faith mistakes when telling important stories," Niehoff explained. "Is this a case of good faith mistakes? Were these journalists trying to get the story right but getting it wrong for understandable reasons? Or is this a different kind of case altogether?"
Niehoff also noted that, as with Sullivan,theDominioncase is also a microcosm of where America is at this point in its history."Sullivan had its origins in the civil rights movement and recognized the threat that southern officials would weaponize libel cases to resist it," Niehoff wrote to Salon. "Sullivan is a case about a great social struggle and the role of the media in advancing it. The Dominion case has its origins in a lie about an election outcome. It is a case about a great fraud, where the plaintiff claims the media helped perpetuate it. One can appropriately wonder what the Dominion case says about where we've strayed to as a society."
This is a situation where, although a court case did not directly set a legal precedent, it set a chill through an entire industry as effectively as if the court had ordered it.
"A psychiatrically-impaired POTUS is capable of doing so much harm," Dr. David Reiss, a psychiatrist and expert in mental fitness evaluations who along with Lee contributed to the book "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President," told Salon. "In my opinion, it is irresponsible for mental health professionals not to inform the public and initiate discussion regarding concerns based upon objective facts (not speculation)."
"The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government," Black explained. "The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."
"The decision is a bit of a libel buffet, offering up lots of principles that are somewhat disconnected from each other," Niehoff told Salon about the Gertzdecision. "But it seems to me possible that the case's approach to damages and other issues could prove important [toDominion]."
The story behindGertzbegins in 1968, when a lawyer named Elmer Gertz decided to represent the family of Ronald Nelson, who had been gunned down by Chicago police officer Richard Nuccio. Because Nuccio was ultimately convicted of second-degree murder, Nelson's family was suing him for damages. The John Birch Society opposed Gertz's advocacy, however, and falsely published that he was actually working for Communist front organizations as part of a conspiracy to destroy America's police force. They also falsely claimed that Gertz had rigged the trial to get Nuccio's conviction and that he himself had a criminal record. Gertz sued American Opinion (the publication which advanced these Bircher ideas) and, although he won a jury verdict and $50,000 award, lost his libel suit because a judge found he had not proved "actual malice." The Supreme Court later affirmed the lower court's ruling. As a result, America does not apply the standard of "strict liability" (holding someone accountable for the consequences of their actions regardless of their intentions) in defamation cases.
As the Gertzcase helps illustrate, one of the key variables in determining whether defamation occurred is ascertaining the presence or absence of "actual malice." While the courts found that Gertz did not meet that standard, the same was not true for Daniel Connaughton, a candidate for Hamilton, Ohio Municipal Judge in 1983. When it looked like Connaughton was going to win the election becausethe incumbent's Director of Court Services was arrested on bribery charges, a local newspaper owned by Harte-Hanks Communications that supported the incumbent decided to change that. Soon they ran a front-page story that falsely accused Connaughton of orchestrating the arrest through "dirty tricks." Among other things, it dishonestly stated that Connaughton had offered a member of the grand jury bribes in exchange for her assistance with the investigation. Connaughton sued Harte-Hanks and won both in a district court and in a Court of Appeals, as the evidence proved Harte-Hanks had intentionally published something false in order to harm Connaughton's reputation a clear example of "actual malice."
When Niehoff was asked to list important First Amendment cases, he made a point of singling Connaughton.
"There, the Supreme Court clarified the kinds of evidence that can show the presence of actual malice," Niehoff told Salon. "It turns out that the evidence looks a fair amount like the same sort of evidence a plaintiff would use in a simple negligence case. The actual malice standard provides important protection, but, once you get to trial, it's probably less protection than is generally understood. The case also clarifies how appellate courts should review adverse jury verdicts, which may ultimately be a factor here."
"In the present case, it is undisputed that Aequitron is a corporate plaintiff and that CBS is a media defendant," the judge ruled. "The defamatory material is a matter of legitimate public interest, as it affects the health and well-being of babies and is subject to federal regulation. Thus, the actual malice standard applies."
At the last second, however, the judge presiding over the case decided that the "veggie libel" law could not be applied in this case, forcing the plaintiffs to instead prove defamation under normal criteria instead of merely needing to prove financial losses. This was all that Oprah needed to prevail.
Read more
about the Dominion case:
Go here to see the original:
First Amendment history hurts Fox News: How precedent helps ... - Salon
- Publishing Pro-Hamas Propaganda Is Protected by First Amendment - Reason - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- "Title VI Must Be Applied Consistent with First Amendment Principles" - Reason - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- Coming soon: Executive Watch Tracking the Trump Administrations free speech record First Amendment News 456 - Foundation for Individual Rights and... - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- Q&A: Professor emphasizes the impact the TikTok ban could have on the First Amendment - Elon News Network - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- First Amendment Audit of ELPD Draws Widespread Attention Online - East Lansing Info - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- Groups demand U.S. attorney for D.C. respect First Amendment - Freedom of the Press Foundation - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- Maryland age assurance lawsuit shows NetChoice digging in on First Amendment - Biometric Update - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- What does the first amendment protect during public comment? - Spectrum News 1 - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- FOX News Trey Yingst to be honored at First Amendment Awards - Editor And Publisher Magazine - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- NetChoice sues to block Marylands Kids Code, saying it violates the First Amendment - The Verge - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- Stevens: Oklahoma tests First Amendment in move to fund Catholic charter school - The Post and Courier - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- OPINION: Keeping the First Amendment on Facebook - Lebanon Reporter - February 7th, 2025 [February 7th, 2025]
- RFK Jr. wants to ban pharma ads on TV. The First Amendment may have something to say. - MSNBC - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Standing Up for the First Amendment: The Roundtable Submits Comment Letter Opposing Amicus Brief Disclosure Requirements - Philanthropy Roundtable - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Trial begins in First Amendment suit against St. John the Baptist Parish - The Lens NOLA - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- RCFP reviews Pam Bondis record on newsgathering, First Amendment issues - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Texas county challenges First Amendment ruling on library book bans in 5th Circuit hearing - Yahoo! Voices - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Trump "Global Gag Rule" as to Abortion Likely Doesn't Violate the First Amendment - Reason - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- It was a violation of our First Amendment rights: FIU students react to the TikTok ban - PantherNOW - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- CWRU First Amendment clinic receives crucial grant from the Stanton Foundation - Crain's Cleveland Business - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Matt Gaetz says the First Amendment was "harmed gravely" by January 6 prosecutions - Media Matters for America - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- New FCC Chair Revives Complaints About ABC, CBS And NBC Content That His Predecessor Rejected As "At Odds With The First Amendment" -... - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- Trumps stated promise: Stop all government censorship and his free speech Executive Order First Amendment News 454 - Foundation for Individual Rights... - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- We Must Protect The First Amendment At All Costs vs. No Thanks, Ill Just Take My Freedoms For Granted Until They Disappear - The Onion - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- TikTok and the First Amendment Robert G. Natelson - Law & Liberty - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- De Pere man sued city of Green Bay for violating his First Amendment rights. The city settled. - Green Bay Press Gazette - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- UChicago Student Sues University, Alleging First Amendment and Tenant Rights Violations - The Chicago Maroon - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- Dr. Rand Paul Introduces Free Speech Protection Act to Safeguard Americans First Amendment Rights Against Government Censorship - Senator Rand Paul - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- Capistrano School District Accused of Trampling First Amendment Rights of Student - California Globe - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- Jerry Zahorchak | Keeping the First Amendment on Facebook | Columns | tribdem.com - TribDem.com - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- 2 blockbuster cases about the First Amendment and online speech - The Hill - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- The First Amendment is First for a Reason - The Wilson Quarterly - January 26th, 2025 [January 26th, 2025]
- Takeaways from the Supreme Courts TikTok decision and what it may mean for the First Amendment - CNN - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- Oral Argument in TikTok v. Garland: Does the First Amendment Apply, and How? - The Federalist Society - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- TikTok, HamHom, and the First Amendment - Reason - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- Supreme Court weighs First Amendment rights and porn in Texas case - NPR - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- "Strong stand for the First Amendment": TikTok announces U.S. return after Trump promise to stay ban - Salon - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- FCCs Rosenworcel Takes Parting Swipe at Incoming Trump Administration Over First Amendment - TV Technology - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- Upholding TikTok ban, Supreme Court attacks First Amendment ahead of Trump inauguration - WSWS - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- Rand Paul Reacts to TikTok Ruling: 'Violation of the First Amendment' - Newsweek - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- Supreme Court Denies TikTok First Amendment Pass, Effectively Shuttering the Social Media Platform in the U.S. on Jan. 19 Unless Sold to Third Party -... - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- "Satan loves the First Amendment" banner lawsuit allowed to proceed against Broward schools - CBS News - January 6th, 2025 [January 6th, 2025]
- Claim Against School Board That Refused to Display "Satan Loves the First Amendment" Banner Can Go Forward - Reason - January 6th, 2025 [January 6th, 2025]
- First Amendment gives way to national security: Countdown on for TikTok - Virginia Mercury - January 6th, 2025 [January 6th, 2025]
- Settlement puts Disneys business interests above First Amendment - Freedom of the Press Foundation - January 6th, 2025 [January 6th, 2025]
- Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Protect Tennessee Minors Act Over First Amendment Concerns - SValleyNow.com | Local News for Marion County and the... - January 6th, 2025 [January 6th, 2025]
- Sullivan and the Central Meaning of the First Amendment Lee Levine & Matthew Schafer - Law & Liberty - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- Tennessee age verification law blocked from taking effect due to First Amendment concerns - WZTV - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- FIRE to SCOTUS: TikTok ban violates Americans' First Amendment rights - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- Ald. Jim Gardiner Agrees to Pay $157K to Settle Lawsuit Claiming He Violated First Amendment by Blocking Critics From Official Facebook Page - WTTW... - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- First Amendment the first casualty in Oklahoma school chiefs weird war on woke | Opinion - Wichita Eagle - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- Donald Trump Asks Supreme Court to Delay TikTok Ban Over First Amendment Concerns - TheWrap - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- How Washington State Stifles the First Amendment for the Incarcerated - Solitary Watch - December 22nd, 2024 [December 22nd, 2024]
- Opinion | Theres Still Time for the Senate to Support the First Amendment - The New York Times - December 22nd, 2024 [December 22nd, 2024]
- First Amendment Censorship Claims Against Stanford Internet Observatory Can Go Forward to Discovery as to Jurisdiction and Standing - Reason - December 22nd, 2024 [December 22nd, 2024]
- S. Ct. Will Hear First Amendment Challenge to TikTok Divestment on Jan. 10 - Reason - December 22nd, 2024 [December 22nd, 2024]
- Counterpoint: Reporters shouldnt have more First Amendment rights than the rest of us - Citrus County Chronicle - December 22nd, 2024 [December 22nd, 2024]
- Deal reached in First Amendment -Facebook lawsuit against Ald. Gardiner, as city agrees to pay some costs - Nadig Newspapers - December 22nd, 2024 [December 22nd, 2024]
- Iowa Republicans are afraid of the First Amendment - Bleeding Heartland - December 22nd, 2024 [December 22nd, 2024]
- TikTok Asks Supreme Court to Block Law Banning Its U.S. Operations - The New York Times - December 18th, 2024 [December 18th, 2024]
- Supreme Court agrees to hear TikToks First Amendment challenge to U.S. ban if not sold - Spectrum News NY1 - December 18th, 2024 [December 18th, 2024]
- Chris Hayes Says Trumps Media Lawsuits Are Meant to Open the Floodgates to Overturn Key First Amendment Rights | Video - Yahoo! Voices - December 18th, 2024 [December 18th, 2024]
- Media on the run: A sign of things to come in Trump times? First Amendment News 451 - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - December 18th, 2024 [December 18th, 2024]
- KERC Approves First Amendment to Multi-Year Transmission, Distribution, and Retail Supply Tariff Regulations 2024 - SolarQuarter - December 18th, 2024 [December 18th, 2024]
- Masked Protests and First Amendment Rights The Chickenman Case in Smyrna - Wgnsradio - December 18th, 2024 [December 18th, 2024]
- First Amendment attorneys say Ohio bill aimed at curbing antisemitism may infringe on rights - 10TV - December 18th, 2024 [December 18th, 2024]
- First Amendment warning: 100% chance of Ryan Walters tweeting - NonDoc - December 18th, 2024 [December 18th, 2024]
- Chris Hayes Says Trump's Media Lawsuits Are Meant to 'Open the Floodgates' to Overturn Key First Amendment Rights | Video - TheWrap - December 18th, 2024 [December 18th, 2024]
- SJC expands First Amendment protection to true threats over the Internet, by text, and in person - The Boston Globe - December 14th, 2024 [December 14th, 2024]
- OPINION: The First Amendment is the Biggest Story of the 2024 Presidential Election - Nevada Globe - December 14th, 2024 [December 14th, 2024]
- First Amendment: Anathema or weapon? - Workers World - December 14th, 2024 [December 14th, 2024]
- Justices Will Hear First Amendment Challenge to Denial of Tax Exemption for Catholic Charities - Law.com - December 14th, 2024 [December 14th, 2024]
- The Press and The People Must Not Willingly Surrender First Amendment Rights to Trump - Daily Kos - December 14th, 2024 [December 14th, 2024]
- La. TikTok creator says potential app ban infringes on First Amendment right - KPLC - December 14th, 2024 [December 14th, 2024]
- Opinion | The TikTok Ruling Is a Blow for the First Amendment and Free Speech - The New York Times - December 10th, 2024 [December 10th, 2024]
- TikTok failed to save itself with the First Amendment - The Verge - December 10th, 2024 [December 10th, 2024]
- Newsoms War on Political Speech: ADF Defends Rumble in the First Amendment Case - California Family Council - December 10th, 2024 [December 10th, 2024]
- Opinion | The TikTok Sale and the First Amendment - The Wall Street Journal - December 8th, 2024 [December 8th, 2024]
- Secret court hearing threatens the First Amendment and more - The Hill - December 8th, 2024 [December 8th, 2024]
- President Trump lacks standing: CBS rubbishes lawsuit over Kamala Harris 60 Minutes interview as procedurally baseless and prohibited by the First... - December 8th, 2024 [December 8th, 2024]