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.
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.
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 works is a big deal), the context of Clarence’s corruption makes it a big deal.
sj_zero 1 year ago
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.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Thank you, a hell of a lot better response than what I would have stated.
This article is just ragebait.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Half the article is about Clarence’s allegation of corruption.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 1 year ago
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.
TJD@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
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 works is a big deal), the context of Clarence’s corruption makes it a big deal.
TJD@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Great write up. Shame like 90% of the people here don’t care and would rather just continue to sling ignorant partisan hate
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
He a corrupt judge making decisions about the legality of topics relating to free speech. That should ring alarm bells for anyone.