The First Amendment should fully protect reporters and news organizations when covering breaking news and sharing information with the public. Democracy cannot be successful without freedom of the press, which means those exercising their right to speak and be heard must be protected.
In New York Times v. U.S. and Washington Post v. U.S., the court noted that the executive branch failed to remember the essential purpose of the First Amendment when seeking injunctions against newspaper companies.
The New York Times and The Washington Post were originally censored from publishing certain classified material that could cause government scrutiny and criticism from American citizens. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that these prior restraints were not justified.
The Supreme Court noted in its ruling that in the First Amendment, “The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy.” With that, the press companies were free to publish and report on the classified information they were previously restrained from mentioning.
However, the protection and right to free expression have led some to develop new tactics to censor and control media. These tactics include weaponized defamation lawsuits and SLAPP suits.
These are tools created to intimidate and silence criticism through expensive and baseless legal proceedings. These attempts at silencing and controlling expression are extremely concerning.
The plaintiffs in these suits must prove they hold evidence that could result in a favorable verdict, as those who are being sued can make a motion to strike the suit on account of it being speech on a matter of public concern.
Therefore, if the plaintiff wants to be successful, they must prove the act of defamation occurred. What exactly is defamation? A more modern definition of the term is a statement that tends to harm the reputation of another to lower his place in the community.
However, even if the plaintiff can prove reputational harm, they may still lose the case as the law itself must recognize the statement as defamatory. Rethinking Defamation explains that the law of defamation takes notice of only certain kinds of attacks on reputation.
Therefore, defamation suits are often unrewarding for plaintiffs as they struggle to prove actual malicious intent as well as defamatory statements. Defendants are provided with privileges, defenses, and constitutional limitations, which are routinely successful. After expensive litigation, a remedy is still not provided for one’s damaged reputation.
Luibrand Law Firm discusses the key elements of a defamation claim as being the following: prove the defendant made a false statement, prove the statement has been published to a third party, prove the statement harmed the plaintiff’s reputation, and establish fault on the defendant.
The counterarguments I would suggest to a plaintiff in a defamation case would be to prove the statement is false and not an opinion of the defendant but an intentional spread of false information. I would also suggest proving the statement was given at a time when the defendant was not protected by absolute or qualified privilege.
I believe that threatening our First Amendment rights and attempting to silence speech is a direct threat to our other freedoms and rights, as well as to our democratic society. Weaponizing legal action to intimidate or silence is a severe misuse of power, as these suits are often filed assuming that the defendant doesn’t have the resources to pay for a legal team.
Anti-SLAPP statutes are very helpful while we examine weaponized defamation lawsuits. These statutes are meant to prevent people from threatening or using legal action to intimidate people exercising their First Amendment rights.
Having these statutes in place ensures that individuals with financial or political power are unable to silence or intimidate the voices that criticize them.
As the Supreme Court ruled in the New York Times and the Washington Post cases, the history and language of the First Amendment support the idea that the press must be left free to publish news, no matter the source, without censorship and injunctions or prior restraints.
Without a completely free press, democracy cannot thrive or properly function as it was intended. Silencing voices due to a difference of opinion or distaste for their statements is a direct violation of our constitutional rights.
Everyone who has a voice has the right to use it and the right for it to be heard. They also have the right to hear the voices of others, unrestrained and uncensored.
Leave a Reply