expressing his feeling this seems like a violation of first amendment principles. if there s a hack of classified information or other information that could expose a serious wartime, and the new york times were to publish it, i think the new york times should have that right. a journalist should not be held accountable unless they aided the hack but so to restrict that especially regarding a presidential candidate, new york versus sullivan, i say that as a total biden n partisan. and it s becoming a bigger deal than it would have. we reached out to congressm man khanna, he provided a statement, i believe our first amendment rights are sacred. i felt twitter s action were a
that s been the law of the land for, gosh, 50, 60 years. i can point you to a case in which i ve applied it and i think it might give you what you re looking for, senator in terms of confirmation. but then this past july in dissenting in a case that the court declined to hear, gorsuch joined justice clarence thomas saying that the court should revisit the breadth of the sullivan ruling and complain how it applies to social media and technology companies. gorsuch wrote, quote, not only has the doctrine evolved into a subsidy for published falsehooded than could have predicted. clarence thomas wrote that the court s earlier pronouncements that the first amendment, quote, required public figures to establish actually malice bears no relationship to history or structure of the constitution. you know whose been advocating
defamation because of the new york times versus sullivan. get ready for palin. as in sarah palin, former governor of alaska and onetime presidential candidate. the trial is expected to begin with jury selection on monday. palin alleges she was defamed by a june 2017 editorial the paper published about the shooting at a congressional softball game in alexandria, virginia, in which four were wounded including then republican w.h.i.p. steve scalise. the new york times said there was a causal connection between an advertisement run by a sarah palin pac and gabby giffords, the key piece as originally published by the times said this, was the attack evidence of how vicious american politics have become? probably.
the new york times versus sullivan standard, that case palin should lose this case, but the law may change and she may wind up winning. you think about times versus palin it s two americas. you have this mainstream institution versus kind of this anti-media figure. this is why it s going to be a doozy of a case. i m sure it will be heavily covered by fox news but there could be a backfire effect, right? outlets like fox do rely on times v. sullivan. and they are relying on times v. sullivan in very big money cases right now. dominion voting systems, mart m smartmatic, the election machine companies that were repeatedly lied about on fox news after the election, repeatedly lied about over and over and they have sued fox for billions of lawyers. foxes lawyers understandably have said new york times versus sullivan protects us, we re supposed to cover robust
night. not surprisingly that the restaurant s yelp page got such ground swell. following the story, i felt it was reckless for palin to interact with others in a public space while having covid. but not just at the risk of contaminating others. no i mean, reckless in a legal sense. she s about to be in the federal district of new york, a federal court that will drawl jurors from these update counties, new york, aka manhattan, the bronx, west whefter, orange, rockland, putnam and sullivan. surely she knew that dining out at a manhattan eatery that had been news and reported she was positive. it s as if she was returning to the same place to make certain this got coverage. why was they re not caution, exercise, so as not to alienate