how about we re sorry. the times used false assertions about miss palin. they published and promoted the column despite knowing the false assertion that mrs. palin incited a person to murder six people. they violated the law and its own policies. in a legal sense does she have a case? what does the supreme court say about this? the supreme court has set a high bar for suing public figures called the new york times versus sullivan. you have to prove that something was published either with reckless disregard for the truth or actual malice toward the public figure. the fact that times ran a correction might mitigate the charge of malice. by filing this suit sarah palin
do you believe that the fist amend. would admit public officials to sue the media less demanding than actual malice an can you explain to the people here today and watching on tv what that standard means to you. the new york times versus sullivan was a landmark decision and changed the law of defamation in this country, rather than defamation an liable, applicable normally for long time, the supreme court said the first amendment has special meaning and protection when talking about the media, the press, in covering public officials, public actions and indicated that a higher standard of proof was required in any defamation or liable claim. proof of actual malice is required. stated claim. that s been the law of the land
it may have relevant when this refugee case comes up. so you might want to study up on it. i m going to i m going to do a lot of work on anti-trust in the next work. i know you are an speaker. senator lee and i have been heading up that committee. imi m going to enon freedom of press in conhonor of my dad. he was a newspaper reporter his whole life. i m especially concerned in today s world about maintaining the press s role as a watchdog. our founders enshrined freedom of the press in the first amendment as thomas jefferson said, our first objective should be to leave open all avenues to truth. and the most effective way to do that is through the freedom of the press. new york times versus sullivan the court issued land mark ruling in support of first amendment protection force the press by aterming that when newspapers report on public officials they can say what they want. maybe we don t always like that. but they can. unless they say something untrue with actual malice.
do you believe, under new york times v sullivan, that the first amendment would permit public officials to sue the media under any standard less demanding than actual malice and can you explain to the people here today and those watching on tv what that standard means to you. that was a land mark decision. and it change dramatically the law of defation and lie bell in this country. rather than the law of defame apgs and laborel applicable normally for a long time the supreme court said the first amendment has special meaning and protection when we are talking about the media, the press, in covering public officials, public actions. and indicated that a higher standard of proof was required in any defamation or lie bell claim. proof of actual malice is required to state a imclachl that s been the law of the land
where he indeed is the defendant in some of those lawsuits, where he s being counter sued. as a result of what happened during the clinton administration with ken starr, the supreme court has ruled that indeed a president can be civilly sued while he s sitting in office. there s no immunity. so that s the first thing. he s going to bring a lot of lawsuits with him. as far as your second question was, joy? whether or not donald trump could really try to go after the media to use the powers of the irs or whatever the fcc to go after media companies. well, he s talked about liberalizing the libel laws. he can t do that. that s controlled by the supreme court. with new york times versus sullivan and that the prodigy that came out of all those fellow cases there. they really dictate that body of law. and that s not anything a president can really do or a congress, for that matter, if he can get a congress to go along. so i as far as going after the media, using the fcc, that s