TTL News

Appeal in Sarah Palin’s libel loss could set up Supreme Court test of decades-old media freedom rule Sarah Palin speaks to the media. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images Bill Kovarik, Radford University To the numerous challenges facing the U.S. media in recent years, add a libel case against The New York Times – lost by Sarah Palin, but now seemingly headed to appeal and perhaps on to the highest court in the land. On Feb. 15, 2022, a jury rejected Palin’s claim. As it happened, its verdict was more or less moot. The presiding judge had already said he would dismiss the case on the grounds that the former Alaska governor’s legal team had failed to reach the bar for proving she had been defamed. A Times editor admitted a mistake in suggesting in a 2017 opinion piece that there was a link between Palin’s rhetoric and a mass shooting. But under the so-called Sullivan standard – a rule in place for nearly 60 years that makes it difficult for public figures to successfully sue for defamation – neither the jury nor the judge considered the error significant enough for Palin to win her case. But in reaching his decision in the Palin case, the federal judge suggested that it was likely not to be the end of the matter – indeed, an appeal is expected. And that has defenders of a free press worried. Legal scholars note that recent opinions by Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch favor overturning the Sullivan standard – a move that would take away a key protection for the press against libel suits by vindictive public officials. As a media historian, I can see the Palin case providing a vehicle to return libel laws back to a time when it was much easier for public figures to sue the press. What is ‘actual malice’? Before 1964’s Sullivan standard, the libel landscape in the U.S. consisted of a patchwork of state laws that made it easy for political figures to selectively persecute newspapers and public speakers who espoused opposing or unpopular views. For example in 1949, John Henry McCray, a Black editor from South Carolina, served two months on a chain gang after being charged with criminal libel for writing a story about a racially charged execution. White publications reporting the same story were not charged. Similarly, in a 1955 libel case, Dr. Von Mizell, a Black surgeon and NAACP official, was ordered to pay a US$15,000 fine for writing in opposition to a Florida state legislator’s idea of abolishing public schools instead of integrating them. Then came the Sullivan case. It centered around several tiny mistakes in a civil rights advertisement carried by The New York Times. L.B. Sullivan, a public official not even named in the advertisement, sued for defamation, and the case went from Alabama to the U.S. Supreme Court. In setting the Sullivan standard in 1964, the Supreme Court said in effect that it ought to be difficult for any official at the federal or the state level to prove that a falsehood was libelous enough – and personally damaging enough – to surmount First Amendment protections. The court said a public official could not win a libel lawsuit by citing minor mistakes, technical inaccuracies or even outright negligence. Instead, under the Sullivan standard, a public official had to prove that there was “actual malice,” which means that a critic knowingly published something false or was in reckless disregard of the truth. The court insisted that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on public officials.” ‘No relation to the Constitution’ Originalists on the current Supreme Court – that is, those justices who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was by those crafting the original document – seemingly disagree. Justice Thomas, in a 2019 opinion, suggested the Sullivan ruling failed to take into account “the Constitution’s original meaning.” He followed this up in a 2021 opinion that stated the requirement on public figures to establish actual malice bears “no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.” Some legal scholars have argued that originalism doesn’t cut much ice when it comes to First Amendment protections. After it passed in 1791, the First Amendment was open to so many state interpretations that there is no agreement on what the accepted interpretation of the day was. Nonetheless, should Palin appeal against the latest ruling, it is likely that the case could reach a Supreme Court in which at least two justices seem primed to challenge the decades-old Sullivan rule. Should their views prevail in the highest court of the land, it could chill the freedom of the press for conservative and liberal news organizations alike. Bill Kovarik is Professor of Communication at Radford University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Here's the place for all things Super Bowl related. Who were you rooting for, or did you even care? Were the commercials good? How about the Half Time show?

See the rest here. Some think it's way past time, while others think mask mandates should remain in place a little while longer. What do you think and why?

Read the rest here.

According to a Facebook post by 15th District Legislator Rodney J. Strange, Chemung County Legislature meetings will reopen to the public beginning February 7th. Attendees will be required to wear a mask.

Here is the complete Saturday morning cartoon lineup, exactly as it aired on December 24, 1983:

See some more here. Is there a show you'd add to this list?

Read more. Who do you think should be inducted this year? Who, if anyone, do you think is long overdue?

Another super thread for the year where we chat about the garden we dream of while the ground is frozen and the garden we actually get when things finally warm up. Anything you plan to try new this year? And things you intend to do differently than last year in the hopes of better results? Or are you just gonna say "screw it" and buy produce at the farmers markets?

See the rest here.

Elmira, N.Y. — State Senator Tom O’Mara (R,C,I-Big Flats) tonight blasted the decision by the state’s Farm Laborers Wage Board to recommend rolling back the current 60-hour-per-week overtime threshold for farm workers beginning in 2024. The three-member Board, by a vote of 2-1, handed down its decision just hours after closing the last of four virtual hearings on the issue earlier today. Board member David Fisher, President of the New York Farm Bureau, voted against the recommendation. O’Mara released the following statement: “It’s clear that this was a preordained decision by this Wage Board. The hours of testimony from farmers, farm workers, farm advocates, agricultural representatives and community leaders were still echoing across this state in near-unanimous opposition to lowering the overtime threshold, and the Board took no time at all before coming out with a disastrous decision. “It was a charade all along. I and many others warned that this is where the Wage Board was headed from day one. It was put in place only to keep paving the way for the far-left, so-called progressive political agenda that dominates Albany Democrat decision-making. It had no meaningful or serious concern for the future of family farms and agriculture in New York State. “The Board heard from countless individual farmers and the leaders of local farm communities. It heard from the industry’s top advocates, including the New York Farm Bureau, the Northeast Dairy Producers Association, Grow NY Farms, and numerous others. It heard from local, federal, and state representatives, like myself, who fear the undermining and ongoing collapse of an industry and, equally important, a way of life that has defined the regions we represent for generations. “The Board ignored us all. They ignored common sense and caution in favor of continuing this relentless pursuit of an extreme political agenda and philosophy that will drive this state over the edge of a fiscal and economic cliff. “In fact, Governor Hochul signaled today’s Wage Board decision in her proposed state budget not long ago by proposing a tax credit for overtime costs. She has clearly been determined to finish what former Governor Cuomo set in motion two years ago. “If left to stand, it will change the face of New York State agriculture as we have known it for generations. It will produce a nightmare of a ripple effect across local communities and economies in every region of this state – but especially upstate in regions like I represent throughout the Southern Tier and Finger Lakes. It will profoundly diminish the future of high quality, local food production. It will spark the loss of family farms and the loss of the livelihoods these farms support across the industry and throughout hundreds of local economies.”

Read the rest here.

Read the rest here.

Read the rest here.

See the rest of the article here.

Read the rest here.

Source

What do you think? Where is the line?

The Chemung County Office of Emergency Management has received approximately 3700 Health test kits to be distributed throughout the community. Each municipality within Chemung County received a number of test kits based on their respective percentage of the population within their jurisdiction. The test kits will be available as of Friday, January 7th and can be obtained from your City, Town, or Village Hall during normal business hours. You must reside within the municipality from which you are requesting a kit. Further kits will be disseminated as they are received from New York State or federal authorities. For assistance to properly utilize a COVID-19 iHealth Test Kit, please visit www.chemungcountyny.gov/covid for an instructional video. Contact information for each municipality can be found below: Towns: Ashland (607) 732-0723 Baldwin (607) 398-7208 Big Flats (607) 562-08443 Catlin (607) 739-5598 Chemung (607) 529-3532 Elmira (607) 734-2031 Erin (607) 739-8681 Horseheads (607) 739-8783 Southport (607) 734-1548 VanEtten (607) 589-4435 Veteran (607)-739-1476 Villages: Elmira Heights (607) 734-7156 Horseheads (607) 739-5691 Millport (607) 739-0703 Wellsburg (607) 271-9129 City: Elmira (607) 737-5644

Read the rest here.

Governor Kathy Hochul today announced Cayuga, Chemung, Clinton, Columbia, Dutchess, Erie, Madison and Niagara Counties together received a total of more than $2.7 million in state matching funds via the County-Wide Shared Services Initiative (CWSSI). During this fiscal year, the CWSSI provides a 95 percent state match of taxpayer savings achieved through the implementation of new shared services identified in county-wide plans produced as a result of the Initiative. The counties' plans identified ways to consolidate services and save taxpayer money through government efficiencies in services and community programs. “As government officials, it’s not only our responsibility to ensure taxpayer dollars are used wisely and efficiently, but it’s also critical that we work consistently to identify savings for hard working New Yorkers,” Governor Hochul said. “I applaud the leadership and creativity of these eight counties and thank all of those who worked on these plans for finding innovative ways to cut costs and put money back into the pockets of New York taxpayers.” Chemung County received $110,755 in state matching funds. The county engaged with eight towns and villages in public works partnerships and IT support to achieve savings. One key project the county implemented was to use its Laserfiche technology to digitize records and modernize record keeping for the City of Elmira, the Village of Horseheads, and the Towns of Ashland, Millport and Horseheads. According to the governor's office, the CWSSI generates property tax savings by facilitating collaboration between local governments across the state and is administered by the Division of Local Government Services at the Department of State.