|
- The daring strategy of Wechsler: to compare the right to
criticize the government (a Federal constitutional issue of
criminal law) with the right to publish statements such as those
at stake in this case (matter of state laws permitting recovery
for libel, a civil law issue).
- Review of the principal arguments in New York Times v. Sullivan:
- No prior decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have sustained
the repression of criticism of govt. officials under the
rubric of exempting libel from the First Amendment.
- The history of freedom of speech and press in this country
emphasizes a broad right to criticize government.
- "Truth" is not to be found from authoritative selection,
but from a multitude of tongues (Bridges v. California) .
- Political speech cannot be punished because it is false.
- Political speech cannot be punished because it might
damage the reputation of government officials, without
destroying the right of public discussion generally.
- Sedition Act of 1798 shows why you can't combine the
arguments two preceding arguments.
- The Times ad, "Heed Their Rising Voices," was just as much
a political document as those punished under the Sedition
Act.
- Alabama law concerning libels was even more repressive
than the Sedition Act.
- State law provides a precedent case: City of Chicago v.
Tribune Co. (1923).
- Government officials are given absolute immunity for what
they say about citizens; citizens "should enjoy a fair
equivalent" of that immunity because they are the ultimate
source of government.
- We can have both protection for seditious libels and
(limited) protection of reputation for public officials. Two
ways:
- Limit what public officials could win to "special
damages:" provable financial losses. No punitive
damages.
- Allow public officials to win only if they proved "actual
malice:" Person who publishes the statement knows it is
false and publishes it anyway. Libel plaintiffs would
have to prove falsity.
- Even if the libel law of Alabama is constitutional on its
face, it is unconstitutional as applied.
- Ad was not "about" 1. B. Sullivan
- No evidence of injury to reputation
- Size of damage award--$500,000--shockingly excessive.
|
