Link Post: @realDonaldTrump Truth: The Charlie Kirk Act
(truthsocial.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (36)
sorted by:
No they aren’t. New York Times V. Sullivan in 64 established the media is able to lie about Public Officials and report those lies as fact. And it’s up to the individual in question to prove they knowingly and maliciously did so. Curtis Publishing V. Butts in 66 expanded the legal precedent to apply to private individuals. Primarily Businessmen, Celebrities etc. Though not exclusively. Gertz V. Robert Welch in 71 technically restored some of the protections of private individuals. Though it’s effectively left up to the states in many cases in how to apply the precedent from the case.
Which means it effectively fixed nothing and in actuality actually successful prosecution against Media and Journalists for lying and libel is expensive and exceedingly difficult. Because the law is on the side of the Journalists.
I know they have protection from the first but it's a little ridiculous to extend that to straight up lies and leave it up to the private individual to prove it in court after the fact. A lot of the time, the damage is done and proving they're lying changes nothing. People STILL call Rittenhouse a murderer. They may have amendment protections for speech, but we also have amendment protections for privacy.
It does seem ridiculous. But current legal precedent favors the media.
Another part of the problem is the laws we have are still very much revolving around the 20th century. Not 2025.
Now every retard with a Computer and WiFi connection can suddenly become a “Journalist” and post whatever about anyone. The problem with that being many of the ‘Citizen Journalists’ aren’t much better than the MSM when it comes to being honest. With just as much recourse for the private citizen