MAGA Means Always Having To Play The Victim

It is indeed libelous. It’s an example of how a bad Supreme Court ruling from 1964 (NY Times v. Sullivan) has created a monster—giving the news media a license to lie about any public figure who can’t prove that the reporter acted with “actual malice,” which is nearly impossible. https://t.co/lWXcUtY2kC

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) March 5, 2023

Let’s start with NYT v Sullivan:

During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the New York Times published an ad for contributing donations to defend Martin Luther King, Jr., on perjury charges. The ad contained several minor factual inaccuracies. The city Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, felt that the criticism of his subordinates reflected on him, even though he was not mentioned in the ad. Sullivan sent a written request to the Times to publicly retract the information, as required for a public figure to seek punitive damages in a libel action under Alabama law. 

When the Times refused and claimed that they were puzzled by the request, Sullivan filed a libel action against the Times and a group of African American ministers mentioned in the ad. A jury in state court awarded him $500,000 in damages. The state supreme court affirmed and the Times appealed. 

Question 

Did Alabama's libel law unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections? 

Conclusion 

To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.

Libel suits were a favorite method of retaliation against civil rights activists. Sullivan didn’t sue because his fee-fees were hurt or because the NYT scandalously lied about him. He sued to dissuade the Times, and others, from helping raise money for the movement. (I’m not sure what perjury King was accused of, but I imagine it was as valid as Sullivan’s libel claims.) 

Ironically, Michael Knowles is playing the part of Sullivan here. He hasn’t been damaged by this RS headline. He just wants to silence reports on what he said.  Which is his other problem: in libel, truth is an absolute defense.

But you said it… https://t.co/SJ8hDoeOT8

— Timothy Ellender, MD, FCCM (@tjelle13) March 5, 2023

"Eradicated” was Knowles’ choice of words.

This isn’t a complaint, by Lee or Knowles, about Sullivan. It’s virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd that they, too, are victims of the “woke” enemy.

UPDATE: Rolling Stone says: "Okay little boy, be careful what you ask for:"

CPAC Speaker calls for eradication of "transgenderism" — and somehow claims he’s not calling for elimination of transgender people https://t.co/ExjquS93Yw

— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) March 6, 2023

"You just might get it."

There is no separating a ban on “transgenderism” from an attack on transgender people, says activist Erin Reed: “They are one and the same, and there’s no separation between them”

Knowles’ argument is like saying he wants to “eradicate “ Judaism, but that doesn’t mean eradicating Jews. In both cases, it’s a distinction without a difference.