#libel law

[gwydionmisha]

Supreme Court declines to revisit landmark First Amendment decision, leaving higher bar for libel in place

The Supreme Court has declined to revisit the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, a 1964 ruling that created a higher bar for public figures to claim libel and has been a bedrock of US media law.

[aswithasunbeam]

What was Hamilton’s stance on freedom of the press? I know the alien and sedition acts suppressed it but wasn’t the Crowell case much later to do with protecting freedom of the press?

Great question! Hamilton was strongly in favor of a free and rigorous press as a check on abuses of power.  As he explained in his oral argument in People v. Croswell, “The Liberty of the Press consists, in my idea, in publishing the truth, from good motives, and for justifiable ends, though it reflect on the government, on magistrates, or individuals.” The purpose of a free press, he continued, was to “give us early alarm and put us on our guard against encroachments of power. This, then, is a right of utmost importance, one for which, instead of yielding it up, we ought rather to spill our blood.”

The Sedition Act was aimed at libel against the government and it’s representatives–libel meaning false statements that might tend to reduce faith in the government for no reason. Vicious, unsubstantiated lies told too often might even confuse the public. How would they know when in fact a serious breach of public confidence had been committed, if the press constantly published salacious rumors or outright made up stories? Hamilton himself invoked the Sedition Act after a story surfaced that he was trying to raise money to sink the Jeffersonian paper, “Aurora”. In a letter to Josiah Ogden Hoffman, dated 6 November 1799, Hamilton argued:

A bolder calumny; one more absolutely destitute of foundation was never propagated. And its dangerous tendency needs no comment; being calculated to inspire the belief that the Independence and liberty of the press are endangered by the intrigues of ambitious citizens and by foreign gold. In so flagrant a case the force of the laws must be tried. I therefore request that you will take immediate measures towards the prosecution of the persons who conduct the inclosed paper.

The falsity of the story was the crux of the problem.

As Hamilton argued, Harry Croswell would have stood a better chance had he been prosecuted under the Sedition Act, because it explicitly allow the truth of a statement as a defense. Croswell was the editor of the Wasp, a newspaper associated with the Federalist Party. He was charged with libel against Thomas Jefferson for publishing an article stating Jefferson had paid James Callender to write negative stories about George Washington and John Adams, and he was  tried under New York common law. As the judge in the trial court applied the common law, though, the prosecution need only establish that the story reflected negatively on Jefferson’s reputation, and that Croswell had published it. No consideration was given to whether the story was true, or the public had a right to know the defamatory information about the current President of the United States.

Although Hamilton lost the case, the New York legislature adopted his definition of libel in 1805, and many other states followed. It wasn’t until the 1960s that the Supreme Court extended the freedom the press even farther–truth is an absolute defense, regardless of whether the motive in publishing it was good. A while back I posted a link to a great article in the Washington Post about the Croswell case, if you’re interested in reading more!

[aswithasunbeam]

One thing that didn’t make it into the musical: Hamilton played a historic and immensely influential role in American free press law, just months before his fatal duel.

This article gives a great breakdown of People v. Croswell, the last major case Hamilton argued before his death. I’ve seen arguments that Hamilton was a hypocrite when it came to freedom of the press because of his (admittedly unfortunate) support for the Sedition Act. In fact, Croswell would have stood a better chance of winning had he been charged under the Sedition Act, which did allow truth as a defense. The common law, as applied by the trial judge in the case, offered no such protection. Croswell published a defamatory statement about the President, and was therefore guilty of seditious libel, without any consideration of the truth or falsity of the accusations he’d made against Jefferson. Hamilton argued that the truth published “from good motives and for justifiable ends” ought to be a defense. Although Hamilton lost the case, his standard was adopted by the New York legislature in 1805. Many other states followed. It actually wasn’t until the 1960s that the US Supreme Court established an even higher standard (truth is now an absolute defense).

[humanismtoday]

[filosofablogger]

So Sue Me!

By now, we all know that Donald Trump is the master of the lawsuit, having been involved in over 4,000 of them in his 70+ years on earth.  Just for kicks, let’s assume that he didn’t start suing and being sued until after his daddy bought him that degree from Wharton School of Business, around age 23.  That still means that this ‘man’ has averaged 83 lawsuits per year!!!  And to further carry it…

View On WordPress

[fortislaw-blog]

Here in the United States, it can be difficult to know when you have a case for defamation. To protect our freedom of speech, the laws surrounding slander are quite tight. There are some very specific qualifications for cases of defamation. Before you talk to a lawyer, it may be helpful to review…

At Fortis law, you will receive our complete commitment to you and help you through your case. Know how to defend yourself from Defamation, Slander, or Libel. Give us a call!  Fortis Law 1-813-452-4110 http://fortis.law

[medialawnorthernireland]

Sign the petition for Libel Reform in Northern Ireland

Also here.

[medialawnorthernireland]

We are quicker to take legal action here, we are quicker to threaten with lawyers, to hand out higher levels of damages when it comes to defamation than anywhere else in the UK in my experience.

Mike Gilson (here: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/stormont-wants-to-kick-libel-law-reform-down-the-road-mlas-told-30130235.html)