Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court said the bar for public figures must be higher because scrutiny of them is so vital to democracy.
They must merely show a false statement was made carelessly. Is It Easier For Non-Public Figures To Prove Defamation? The parents suing Jones say his lies about their child’s death harmed their reputations and led to death threats from Jones’ followers. The statement also must have done actual damage to someone’s reputation. Jones, who had said actors staged the shooting as a pretext to strengthen gun control, later acknowledged it occurred.ĭefamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly - typically via the media - and purporting that it’s true.
“If questioning public events and free speech is banned because it might hurt somebody’s feelings, we are not in America anymore,” he said. Jones’ lawyer Andino Reynal said the case is crucial to free speech.Īnd Jones made similar arguments in a deposition. “Speech is free,” he said, “but lies you have to pay for.” During opening statements last week, plaintiff lawyer Mark Bankston told jurors it doesn’t protect defamatory speech. Have Both Sides Referred To The First Amendment? “It is reasonable to presume that (Jones) and his team did not think they had a viable defense … or they would have complied,” said Barry Covert, a Buffalo, New York, First Amendment lawyer. It might suggest Jones knew certain evidence would doom his defense. … It’s so odd to not even give yourself the chance to defend yourself.” Solomon, a founding editor of New York University’s First Amendment Watch. “I don’t know why they didn’t cooperate,” said Stephen D. Judges in other lawsuits against Jones have issued similar rulings.
0 kommentar(er)
