Clarence Thomas Stay Pushing fo’ Check Out Da Big Kine Libel Law Ruling One Mo’ Time 🏛️🔍
⬇️ Pidgin | ⬇️ ⬇️ English
Clarence Thomas Like Rethink Da Libel Law One Mo’ Time Skip all da kine content, site index, search and section navigation. U.S. Today’s Paper get one big news: Clarence Thomas like us guys rethink dat landmark libel ruling again!
🤔 Da justice wen write down dat da decision of New York Times v Sullivan make any kine news organization trow dirty lies on top public figures wit almost no consequences. 😮 Justice Clarence Thomas been long time no agree wit dis standard wea public figures gotta prove actual malice if dey suing for defamation. Dat means dey gotta show proof say da defendant knew he was lying or didn’t care whether he was telling truth or not.
📸 Credit…J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press By Adam Liptak Reporting from Washington Oct 10, 2023 On Tuesday Justice Clarence Thomas wen call out again fo Supreme Court fo rethink New York Times v Sullivan – you know, dat big kahuna case from 1964 about First Amendment rights making it more hard for public officials to win in libel suits. Thomas went write that the decision had no basis in the Constitution as how our kupuna who drafted and ratified it understood um.
He even quote one old opinion saying that this kind thing comes with heavy price tag – let media organizations and interest groups throw stink eye at our leaders without fear of getting lickens.”😲 Plenty times people talk story bout Justice Thomas questioning his ethics rules cuz they said he neva disclose gifts an trips from Harlan Crow – one Texas billionaire who always give money to conservative causes. Da Sullivan decision an ones afta require anybody famous suing for defamation must prove “actual malice”. But dis phrase not mean what you think; nahting do with spite or ill will kinda stuffs.
Instead if somebody like prove “actual malice” they gotta show dat da defendant knew the statement was false or didn’t care whether it was true or not. Da Supreme Court wen say that this means you gotta show proof that the writer had serious doubts about if what he wrote was true. Justice Thomas long time no agree with dis actual malice standard, and Tuesday’s opinion came back to earlier themes, quoting old opinions.
Read More here https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/727/
NOW IN ENGLISH
Clarence Thomas Urges Reevaluation of Pivotal Libel Law Ruli…
Clarence Thomas Wants to Reconsider Libel Law Once More Skip all unnecessary content, site index, search and section navigation. U.S.
Today’s Paper has big news: Clarence Thomas wants us to reconsider that landmark libel ruling again!🤔 The justice wrote that the decision of New York Times v Sullivan allows any kind of news organization to spread false information about public figures with almost no consequences. 😮 Justice Clarence Thomas has long disagreed with this standard where public figures have to prove actual malice if they are suing for defamation.
That means they have to show evidence that the defendant knew he was lying or didn’t care whether he was telling truth or not.📸 Credit…J.Scott Applewhite/Associated Press By Adam Liptak Reporting from Washington Oct 10, 2023 On Tuesday Justice Clarence Thomas called out again for Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v Sullivan – you know, that major case from 1964 about First Amendment rights making it more difficult for public officials win in libel suits.Thomas wrote that the decision had no basis in Constitution as how our ancestors who drafted and ratified it understood it. He even quoted an old opinion saying this type of thing comes at a heavy cost – allowing media organizations and interest groups criticize our leaders without fear of repercussions.😲 Many times people discuss Justice Thomas questioning his ethics rules because they said he did not disclose gifts and trips from Harlan Crow – a Texas billionaire who always donates money conservative causes.The Sullivan decision requires anyone famous suing for defamation must prove “actual malice”.
But this phrase does not mean what you think; nothing do with spite or ill will sort stuffs. Rather if someone wants prove “actual malice” they need show evidence defendant knew statement was false didn’t care whether true .The Supreme Court stated this means you have to show evidence that the writer had serious doubts about if what he wrote was true.
