Skip to main content

Book Note: Samantha Barbas

 


Samantha Barbas’s Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in N.Y. Times v. Sullivan:

Publication date, August 2024. UC Press. 

A fascinating case: Times v. Sullivan (1964) constitutionalized the law of libel. 

I'll review facts that will be familiar to the former law students among you: the Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner filed a lawsuit against the Times over an advertisement the Times had published that, the lawsuit claimed, harmed his reputation. The US Supreme Court said that criticism of public officials, even harsh criticism, and even that which may sometimes be erroneous, is integral to our system of ordered liberty. Such criticism is protected by the first amendment unless it is "published with knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth." 

Samantha Barbas has now written a new book about the case. Apparently, her chief slant is that implied by the subtitle: that the Sullivan case is generally perceived as a first-amendment case whereas in origin, in original context, it was a racial-equality case. The first amendment was simply the weapon available to serve that cause. 

I haven't read the book and so I make no judgment about it.  I simply include this brief note so that any of you who may have some interest in the subject can go get it and form an opinion yourself. 

You're welcome. 


Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryOctober 15, 2024 at 7:09 AM

    Here is an interview with Barbas about the book: https://www.buffalo.edu/news/tipsheets/2023/005.html

    She notes why the book is timely:

    "There have been several attacks on Sullivan in recent years, mostly from conservatives who want the Supreme Court to make it easier to sue their critics in the press for libel. Donald Trump criticized the Sullivan ruling and brought several high-value libel suits against news outlets, including CNN and the Washington Post. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has publicly criticized Sullivan, and Florida Republicans recently introduced a bill that would roll back protections of Sullivan. At this moment, conservative lawyers and activists are filing lawsuits and bringing appeals to get the Supreme Court to reconsider Sullivan and rulings that extended Sullivan. Sarah Palin’s appeal of her loss in her libel case against The New York Times in 2021 includes a challenge to Sullivan. Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have stated their opposition to Sullivan. There are concerns the Supreme Court may vote to overrule Sullivan."

    A sidenote: People should stop calling reactionaries "conservative," as Barbas does here. Just as it was not conservative to overturn the 50-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade, it would not be conservative to overturn the 60-year-old precedent of New York Times v. Sullivan. Conservatives want to conserve (rather than progress); they don't want to go back in time.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
9 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more