Approximately fifteen years past, Guy Lawson dined in New York with his editors from Rolling Stone. Feeling weary of documenting the drug conflicts in Mexico, he sought alternative topics that might pique their interest.
“We want you to do stories about young people doing fucked-up things,” he was told.
The discussion eventually centered around a piece discussing two drug traffickers-turned-arms dealers, who found themselves embroiled in corrupt activities within Albania. This topic evolved into a book, followed by the 2016 film “War Dogs,” featuring Jonah Hill and Miles Teller in leading roles.
“It was a great story,” Lawson says.
After the movie’s release, I found myself embroiled in a legal dispute a year later. Shkelzen Berisha, son of the Albanian prime minister, accused me of defamation.
The legal case concerning the suit was brought before the Supreme Court, which declined to consider it. However, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch expressed agreement with Berisha’s stance and proposed reconsidering the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, a landmark decision that has protected sharp-tongued journalism for six decades, as potentially outdated.
Lawson remarks, “This case was remarkably weak. It appears to be a component of a broader effort to redefine the concept of precedent and the essence of free speech.
Previously, many viewed President Trump’s attacks on the media as more for show than substance. His legal actions might have been draining and expensive, yet they seemed destined for defeat, much like his promise to redefine libel laws. However, here I am, a loyal supporter, eagerly waiting to see how this narrative unfolds.
Since his election victory, he’s been on a roll of successes. In December, Trump received a $16 million settlement for defamation from ABC. Last week, Meta consented to pay $25 million for removing him from Facebook. There are also concerns that the wider campaign—an attack by Trump’s supporters on the Sullivan decision—might succeed as well.
As an ardent movie buff and author of “Actual Malice,” I’ve been following the situation closely. It appears the threats against the press are materializing, a pattern that, based on my research in the Sullivan case, has set a significant hurdle for public figures to overcome when it comes to defamation claims. Interestingly, I’ve noticed several recent attempts to undermine this historic decision, and I can’t help but feel these efforts will persist.
Confidence in the media is lower than ever before, as reported by Gallup. If the Sullivan protections weren’t present, journalists might face biased jurors in court.
During a recent trial held in Panama City, Florida, CNN was instructed to pay $5 million, along with unspecified punitive damages, for tarnishing the reputation of Zachary Young, a security contractor. This defamation was found in a report about Afghan refugees, where CNN was accused of intentionally trying to discredit Young, regardless of the actual facts, as argued by his legal representative using internal correspondences among reporters.
As a passionate cinephile taking the stand, I firmly asserted, “Indeed, what you’re outlining, sir, is the essence of my craft – reporting.
The jurors found it hard to accept it. Foreperson Katy Svitenko shared with EbMaster that Marquardt seemed overly arrogant, and gave off the impression he harbored a personal grudge against Young. She stated that the jury aimed to convey a message to all media: “The public is tired of false news and biased facts.
Jane Kirtley, a professor specializing in media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, points out that this instance offers a valuable lesson: “Avoid committing to writing anything you wouldn’t feel comfortable having a highly unfavorable court review.
Despite having a disadvantageous position, CNN stood its ground. Previously, according to Barbas, the media would typically retreat when faced with libel threats by politicians, but not CNN under Sullivan’s leadership.
She notes that prior to the Sullivan era, libel lawsuits were often employed in political conflicts. It appears this tactic is making a comeback,” she says.
George Freeman from the Media Law Resource Center comments that there’s been a rise in legal actions concerning political defamation; however, many of these cases are likely to end unsuccessfully. Additionally, Freeman expresses skepticism about the possibility of the ruling in the Sullivan case being overturned. He explains that, structurally, the court is facing numerous other issues.
Lawson expresses some doubts. He suspects that the two judges were aiming at “legitimate journalism,” and perceives a broader apprehension that Sullivan’s case may follow a similar path as Roe v. Wade.
He claims there’s a hint of intimidation in these situations. Now, whenever I talk with an editor, I can feel a sense of unease. It seems like everyone senses we’re approaching a critical point. I get the impression they’re trying to be cautious so as not to draw unwanted attention.
VIP+ Analysis: How Trump Tariffs Further Complicate Gaming Consoles’ Vulnerability
Read More
- “I’m a little irritated by him.” George Clooney criticized Quentin Tarantino after allegedly being insulted by him
- South Korea Delays Corporate Crypto Account Decision Amid Regulatory Overhaul
- What was the biggest anime of 2024? The popularity of some titles and lack of interest in others may surprise you
- Destiny 2: When Subclass Boredom Strikes – A Colorful Cry for Help
- Deep Rock Galactic: The Synergy of Drillers and Scouts – Can They Cover Each Other’s Backs?
- Sonic 3 Just Did An Extremely Rare Thing At The Box Office
- Final Fantasy 1: The MP Mystery Unraveled – Spell Slots Explained
- Influencer dies from cardiac arrest while getting tattoo on hospital operating table
- Smite’s New Gods: Balancing Act or Just a Rush Job?
- Twitch CEO explains why they sometimes get bans wrong
2025-02-06 21:48