Replies

Wouldn’t stand up in court

The trick is to get it to court. According to the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, Judges can’t sue for libel at all, and political officials, as a practical matter, cannot either.
The interesting thing is that, in that unanimous 1964 decision, the Warren Court held that the First Amendment denigrated the right of judges and officials to sue for libel - And Antonin Scalia, in a lecture, explained that the First Amendment actually did not, does not, change anyone’s rights at all.
What!! How can that be!! The answer is that the Bill of Rights in general, and the First Amendment in particular, were composed and ratified to set the rights of the people, as they were accepted to exist in 1787, in concrete. The Ninth Amendment could scarcely be clearer on this point.
But doesn’t the First Amendment create freedom of the press? NO! Freedom of the press existed in 1787, and so did limits on that freedom. If freedom of the press were absolute, pornography would be absolutely legal - and so would libel. There would never be any cases brought against either. And we know that isn’t true.
The trick lies in the wording of 1A referring to the freedom of the press. Not absolute freedom, but freedom as understood in 1787.
Consequently the logic of the Sullivan decision is defective. 9-0 ruling or not.
The Warren Court Said That 1A Denigrated the Right Of Officials to Sue For Libel. That was WRONG.