Freedom of the press is great, until you're the target
Apr 24, 2025
41:26
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
The Supreme Court's Times v. Sullivan decision has historically protected free speech, but influential figures are now attempting to undermine these safeguards.
Prominent legal professionals, including Alan Dershowitz, have shifted their stances, reflecting a cultural change threatening journalistic independence and accountability.
Deep dives
The Origins of Times v. Sullivan
In 1964, the Times v. Sullivan case arose when Alabama state official L.B. Sullivan sued the New York Times for running a civil rights ad that he claimed defamed him, even though he was not explicitly named. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Times, establishing a landmark decision that raised the bar for defamation suits against public officials. For a successful case, plaintiffs must now prove that the defendant knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, rather than simply demonstrating that a statement was inaccurate or exaggerated. This ruling aimed to protect free speech and ensure vigorous public debate surrounding issues of governance and public figures.
The Changing Attitudes of Legal Figures
Alan Dershowitz, who once advocated for Times v. Sullivan, exemplifies a concerning shift among legal professionals regarding free speech protections. After enjoying a long career that included being a defender of the landmark case, Dershowitz contradictory sued CNN for defamation, starkly contrasting his previous views. Many other prominent lawyers and judges are also abandoning their support for Sullivan, as a new movement seeks to challenge its foundations. David Enrich’s investigations highlight how this shift is fueled by influential figures unhappy with media scrutiny, particularly amid allegations of misconduct.
A New Campaign Against Press Freedoms
In recent years, a well-organized effort has emerged to undermine Times v. Sullivan, reflecting a significant cultural and political shift regarding free speech. Influential figures with financial resources have begun exploiting legal loopholes to threaten journalists and discourage investigative reporting, which they perceive as a direct challenge to their power. High-profile cases, such as Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker Media, exemplify how wealth can be weaponized to silence criticism and intimidate media outlets. This troubling trend of using litigation as a means to stifle journalistic inquiry poses a grave risk to the freedoms originally upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Political Dimensions of Legal Changes
The evolving landscape surrounding Times v. Sullivan coincides with the rise of political figures like Donald Trump, who openly criticized the media and sought to change libel laws. This atmosphere has emboldened certain public figures accused of sexual misconduct to attack the principles enshrined in Sullivan, positioning themselves as victims of media bias. Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court Justice, has recently indicated an openness to reconsider the Sullivan decision, thereby signaling a potentially seismic shift in legal precedent. The combination of powerful figures seeking to protect themselves from scrutiny and the rise of new legal strategies presents a formidable threat to media freedom.
For decades, a Supreme Court decision called New York Times vs Sullivan was widely beloved by people across the political spectrum. Hailed as a decision that gives the first amendment teeth and sets our country apart, as a place that prizes free speech.
But recently, right under our noses, some of the same people who once sang Times v Sullivan's praises have turned against it.
The story of the growing movement that is trying to get the Supreme Court to overturn perhaps the strongest protection for speech and the press in America.
