The hoax was the second in two days. Vice President Kamala Harris accused Trump on Thursday of wanting to “control” women’s bodies “whether they like it or not.”
Trump’s full statement shows Trump said he would “protect” women from migrant crime and from foreign adversaries. Trump’s statement was not in the context of abortion.
Harris suggested Trump’s remark was “very offensive to women in terms of not understanding their agency, their authorities, their right, their ability to make decisions about their own lives, including their own bodies.”
The media then pushed Harris’s talking point as fact.
Lee explained in a long thread on X why the media can get away with writing untruths without legal liability:
This sort of thing happens because the Supreme Court, about 60 years ago, invented a First Amendment doctrine that protects the media from defamation liability, at least in lawsuits brought by public figure
If you’re wondering which words in the First Amendment tell reporters they are free to defame activists, politicians, and other public figures without fear of getting sued, you’re on the right track
Nothing in the text, structure, or original public understanding of the First Amendment talks about or even leads logically to an absurd rule insulating the media from defamation liability
The fact that the Constitution doesn’t support this rule didn’t stop the Supreme Court from deciding, in a 1964 case called NY Times v. Sullivan, that a defamation action brought by a public figure cannot succeed unless the defendant acted with “actual malice”
The Supreme Court defined “actual malice” to mean knowledge of the offending statement’s falsity or reckless disregard as to its truthfulness
For obvious reasons, news-media industry loves NY Times v. Sullivan, as it gives reporters and media companies almost a complete pass when it comes to defaming public figures
But the fact that media companies love NY Times v. Sullivan doesn’t change the fact that the Supreme Court invented this doctrine out of thin air
Even if one thinks immunizing media companies from defamation liability might be a good idea for policy reasons, that doesn’t change the fact that it finds no support in the Constitution
As a practical matter, moreover, it’s become apparent that NY Times v. Sullivan disproportionately—indeed, overwhelmingly—helps Democrats and creates a severe disadvantage for Republicans in the political process
Think about it: the media is all but immune from defamation liability when speaking about public figures, including politicians, so—given that the media is almost seamlessly aligned with Democrats—they can hit Republicans basically all they want without fear
And they do!
Basically all the media has to do to avoid liability when attacking Donald Trump & other Republican politicians is have some thin, arguable basis to show that when they defamed a Republican, they didn’t know they were speaking falsely
That means they can be negligent when speaking falsely about Republican politicians like Trump
The media will of course insist “that’s not fair to say NY Times v. Sullivan allows us to single out Republicans; after all, the same standard applies regardless of a politician’s party affiliation”
That, however, overlooks the overwhelming, increasingly obvious bias within the news industry in America
So yeah, the “actual malice” standard technically allows the media to defame politicians of both parties equally—but they don’t; not by a mile
Thus, not only is NY Times v. Sullivan wrong because it’s not rooted in the Constitution (but claims to be), but it leaves countless victims of defamation without recourse, encourages lazy journalism, and provides a huge, unfair advantage to Democrats in politics
