To the Editor:
Re “Justice Thomas Calls for Reconsideration of a Landmark 1964 Libel Ruling” (news article, Feb. 20):
Two points concerning Justice Clarence Thomas’s plea to abandon New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny:
First, Justice Thomas’s cramped reading of Sullivan misses the Supreme Court’s central claim. The court wasn’t protecting freedom of the press as an end in itself but rather giving the press some latitude in facilitating, in Justice William Brennan’s choice words, the “uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate” that self-governance demands.
Justice Thomas’s understanding of libel law, should it prevail, would put us in league with Singapore and other countries where public officials use libel law to intimidate the press and curtail public discourse.
Second, Justice Thomas’s call to reconsider the Sullivan case, on the grounds that it doesn’t comport with what the authors of the Constitution originally wrote and presumably meant, illustrates the folly of “originalist” thinking.
Justice Thomas’s position would strip justices of the power to revisit and revise the meaning of the Constitution; it would make a mockery of the idea of the Constitution as a living document.
Theodore L. Glasser
Palo Alto, Calif.
The writer is professor emeritus of communication at Stanford University.
To the Editor:
If Justice Clarence Thomas’s call for reconsidering New York Times v. Sullivan goes anywhere, President Trump should be very worried. Even though Mr. Trump loudly calls for making it easier to sue for libel, it’s hard to think of anyone who has maliciously accused more people of more things with less proof.
Be careful what you wish for …
Nat Eddy
Deep River, Conn.
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | Justice Thomas’s Call to Ease Libel Law
Opinion | Justice Thomas’s Call to Ease Libel Law
To the Editor:
Re “Justice Thomas Calls for Reconsideration of a Landmark 1964 Libel Ruling” (news article, Feb. 20):
Two points concerning Justice Clarence Thomas’s plea to abandon New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny:
First, Justice Thomas’s cramped reading of Sullivan misses the Supreme Court’s central claim. The court wasn’t protecting freedom of the press as an end in itself but rather giving the press some latitude in facilitating, in Justice William Brennan’s choice words, the “uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate” that self-governance demands.
Justice Thomas’s understanding of libel law, should it prevail, would put us in league with Singapore and other countries where public officials use libel law to intimidate the press and curtail public discourse.
Second, Justice Thomas’s call to reconsider the Sullivan case, on the grounds that it doesn’t comport with what the authors of the Constitution originally wrote and presumably meant, illustrates the folly of “originalist” thinking.
Justice Thomas’s position would strip justices of the power to revisit and revise the meaning of the Constitution; it would make a mockery of the idea of the Constitution as a living document.
Theodore L. Glasser
Palo Alto, Calif.
The writer is professor emeritus of communication at Stanford University.
To the Editor:
If Justice Clarence Thomas’s call for reconsidering New York Times v. Sullivan goes anywhere, President Trump should be very worried. Even though Mr. Trump loudly calls for making it easier to sue for libel, it’s hard to think of anyone who has maliciously accused more people of more things with less proof.
Be careful what you wish for …
Nat Eddy
Deep River, Conn.
Source: Read Full Article