The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to review a challenge to its landmark New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas has some thoughts.

The 1964 ruling established limits on public officials’ ability to sue on grounds of defamation, as well as the need to prove a standard of “actual malice” by the outlet making the allegedly defamatory statements.

The Supreme Court declined to hear Blankenship v. NBC Universal, LLC, a lawsuit brought by coal magnate Don Blankenship, who in 2015 was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of conspiring to violate safety standards at a Virginia mine where an explosion killed 29 workers. Blankenship was sentenced to a year in prison and fined $250,000. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Blankenship then sued NBC Universal, alleging that the news company had defamed him by describing him as a “felon.” Lower courts ruled that NBC had not acted with “malice” in their statements, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

While Justice Thomas concurred that Blankenship’s case did not require a ruling by the Supreme Court, he called for the justices to review the standard set by New York Times v. Sullivan “in an appropriate case.”

“I continue to adhere to my view that we should reconsider the actual-malice standard,” Thomas wrote,” referencing his previous opinion in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center. “New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” he added, “the actual-malice standard comes at a heavy cost, allowing media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”

The push from Thomas comes amid widespread media reporting on allegations of corruption and improper financial relationships involving the justice. A series of investigations by ProPublica and The New York Times have uncovered unreported gifts, real estate deals, and luxury perks given to Thomas by high-profile conservative figures — many of which were not reported in financial disclosures, or weighed as conflicts of interest in relevant cases.

In April, ProPublica reported on the extent of Thomas’ relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow. The real estate mogul gifted Thomas frequent rides on private jets, vacations to luxury resorts, and trips on his superyachts. Crow also purchased $133,000 in real estate from Thomas, and footed private school tuition bills for a child Thomas was raising.

Subsequent reporting has exposed Thomas’ relationship with other powerful conservative players, including the Koch brothers, oil tycoon Paul “Tony” Novelly, H. Wayne Huizenga, the former owner of the Miami Dolphins, and investor David Sokol.

Thomas has claimed that the omissions from his financial statements were nothing more than oversights and that he had been advised that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

  • PizzaMan@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Half the article is about Clarence’s corruption.

    Why the hell are we letting a corrupt judge decide anything at all related to free speech?

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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.

      • PizzaMan@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not that cut and dry.

        The court determined that journalists were confused about the meaning of the term “felon,” which by definition refers to someone convicted of a felony. Although Blankenship was not a “felon,” he was sentenced to serve a one-year sentence in federal prison — a rarity for a misdemeanor offense.

        “Blankenship’s prison sentence placed him as close to felony status as possible,” Gregory said, adding that for “non-lawyers” describing Blankenship as a felon was not “inherently improbable,” and there were not “obvious reasons to doubt the veracity” of such a statement.

        “Some of the statements may have been the product of carelessness and substandard journalistic methods,” the chief judge wrote. “But at the end of the day, the record does not contain evidence that the commentators and journalists responsible for the statements were anything more than confused about how to describe a person who served a year in prison for a federal offense.”

        https://apnews.com/article/crime-west-virginia-don-blankenship-prisons-99091dd8c1fdb56458393eff9a7b4360

        The active malice rule is put in place to prevent public figures from sueing anybody who even slightly criticizes them. Without the rule, it would dissuade people’s free speech to report and comment on these things.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is some mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion. He was convicted of a misdemeanor. Only an idiot would think that’s a felon.

          Thomas is correct. Were let the standard slip to be meaningful.

          Freedom is speech is between you and the government. It’s not about people defaming you.

          • PizzaMan@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            He was convicted of a misdemeanor. Only an idiot would think that’s a felon.

            He was in federal prison.

            Freedom is speech is between you and the government. It’s not about people defaming you.

            You can’t have free speech without protections from slapp suits.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Umm… Where do you think a person goes to serve time if they go to a federal institution?

              Free speech is between you and the government. It isn’t between you and another party.

              • PizzaMan@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Where do you think a person goes to serve time if they go to a federal institution?

                Is there somewhere you’re going with this?

                Free speech is between you and the government. It isn’t between you and another party.

                Slapp suits use the government to silence people. I don’t know why your bringing this up as if it helps make your case.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes there is nothing odd serving a federal sentence in a federal prison. That’s common sense. Where else would they serve their time? A misdemeanor is a year of less. So the sentence would tell you it’s a misdemeanor. Also the paperwork would show its misdemeanor. The crime itself would tell you it’s a misdemeanor.

                  Where did Thomas mention a slapp suit ?

                  And no a slapp suit is the the government silencing anymore. Good lord learn how the system works. It’s a civil action between two parties. The government is just enforcing the laws.

                  • PizzaMan@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Where did Thomas mention a slapp suit ?

                    The active malice requirement is a protection against slapp suits and similar. He doesn’t need eo explicitly mention them for them to be a part of this.

                    It’s a civil action between two parties.

                    It’s run by the government and enforced by the government. If you fail to show up, fail to get the money together to fight it, etc, you will be severely punished (enforced by the government).

                    You can’t act like the government isn’t involved in lawsuits.

                    The government is just enforcing the laws.

                    Congratulations, you found the part where the government is involved with this, thus the potential trampling of free speech.