We had good news from the US Supreme Court recently. It summarily refused to hear a case that seems to have been brought to its attention solely for the purpose of obtaining a reversal of New York Times v. Sullivan.
A coal baron turned politician, Donald Blankenship, took exception to a printed characterization of himself as a felon. He had been convicted, and served time, for a misdemeanor, not a felony.
The characterization is an error, but there is no reason to believe that the error involved "actual malice" in the legal/constitutional sense, and there is no doubt that Blankenship is a public figure. As well as probably the second most blatantly fascistic "Donald" in US public life at the moment.
So, as to Blankenship's efforts to get a defamation trial underway: check mate, right? Well, so one would think. If one were not Blankenship himself, OR someone devoted to the destruction of the Times v. Sullivan rule that has protected publications from precisely such suits for 60 years.
And -- what do you know? -- the old rule still rules.
Comments
Post a Comment