Justice Clarence Thomas' musings — supported by Neil Gorsuch — that there's nothing in the Constitution about public figures having a much higher hurdle to prove libel, and therefore New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) should be reexamined, is not just about celebrities being more able to sue lascivious supermarket rags. As the article points out, libel laws were used to tie up and ward off journalists from covering the events in the Jim Crow South — precisely what this SCOTUS case was about. Holding libel trials in the Deep South for newspaper coverage of the Deep South made victory likely, and, even when not, the cost of defending such suits was prohibitive.
One could argue that, from an Originalist standpoint, the practical effects don't matter so long as the original text of the Constitution remains pure. But there's little doubt that such a change in Constitutional law would have a massively negative effect on investigative journalism of any ideology, and simply ensure that the powerful are more able to retain their power.
a black man making heroes out of segregationists! what a maroon.
I don't think an originalist would lower the libel standards on public figures. They are much more likely to raise libel standards for private individuals.
VISIT MY WALL TO SEE VIDEO HOT
aergwfd
What has happened to the Constitution in all this? Media, religion…..these asses need to STEP BACK
VISIT MY WALL TO SEE VIDEO HOT
ewefDQ
VISIT MY WALL TO SEE VIDEO HOT
EAGWFDQ
VISIT MY WALL TO SEE VIDEO HOT
REAWFDQ
VISIT MY WALL TO SEE VIDEO HOT
eargwfqd
VISIT MY WALL TO SEE VIDEO HOT
egwfd
VISIT MY WALL TO SEE VIDEO HOT
reagwfqd
VISIT MY WALL TO SEE VIDEO HOT
reawfd
+Geo. Tirebiter Exactly who is the maroon? Coconut, chocolate?
+Geo. Tirebiter I would remember the context here. Clarence Thomas was falsely accused of sexual misconduct by Anita Hill. Since he was a public figure, there is no way for him to correct the slandering much the same way Kavanaugh can't correct the slandering against him.
Personally, I think it's fine to be slandered in such a way. Most people will believe who they want based on their character or core beliefs. The founders themselves used newspaper outlets to slander each other.
+Kevin Smith
(1) I'm not sure why you would believe that an Originalist would raise the libel standards for the general public.
(2) Thomas was accused by Hill. Those accusations were not credited (or considered sufficient to not confirm Hill) by a narrow majority of the US Senate. That's a bit different from "falsely accused."