Sunday, May 24, 2015

Never Mind

It was hard not to wince when reading the New York Times piece Tuesday about Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s unpleasant comments about the press. They came, the paper reported, in a 30-year-old critique of the Times v Sullivan case - a bedrock of libel law today, and one requires that damagingly false statements about public officials be made with actual malice. (That means the reporter knew the words were false or had reckless disregard for the truth in order for them to be libelous.)

Never Mind

0 comments

It was hard not to wince when reading the New York Times piece Tuesday about Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s unpleasant comments about the press. They came, the paper reported, in a 30-year-old critique of the Times v Sullivan case  - a bedrock of libel law today, and one requires that damagingly false statements about public officials be made with actual malice. (That means the reporter knew the words were false or had reckless disregard for the truth in order for them to be libelous.)

The Times reported Roberts writing that "any assumption that media coverage of government institutions and public officials is the centerpiece of effective democracy is misplaced." In fact, "by crowning the media with virtual absolute immunity for falsely assailing public officials," the Sullivan ruling "obstructs the ability of the president and other public officials to recruit talented and loyal supporters."

The critique was vigorous, brilliantly written and informed by a deep hostility toward the press, said Anthony Lewis, the author of "Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment" and a former columnist for The New York Times.

"It's quite an astonishing document," Mr. Lewis said of the critique. "He's not a fan of the press. He speaks of 'the zeal and insouciance with which the mass media assails public officials.' "

Less wincing today. Turns out the memo was not written by Roberts. A bylined correction reports Bruce Fein, a former Reagan Administration lawyer owning up to the words. The critique wound up in Roberts papers released by the White House.

Inquirer Columnist
0 comments
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy:

Philly.com comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by Philly.com staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
 
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog
Blinq is a news commentary blog featuring contributions from Inquirer Metro columnists Kevin Riordan and Daniel Rubin.

Daniel Rubin Inquirer Columnist
Also on Philly.com
letter icon Newsletter