Loading ...Some serious ATTITUDE is starting to surface at the local level … EPIC is right!
5 min video …. NOT milktoast
intro, video and comments
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/06/22/epic-bucks-county-pennsylvania-resident-and-taxpayer-confronts-the-school-board/
video only
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxKu6-05n7k (Simon Campbell)
I am disappointed more people have not quoted that supreme court ruling of 1964 during all the censorship and cancel culture we have been experiencing for the better part of five years.
via Cornell
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Primary tabs
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that First Amendment freedom of speech protections limit the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. The case emerged out of a dispute over a full-page advertisement run by supporters of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in The New York Times in 1960. The advertisement described civil rights protests in Montgomery, Alabama, lauded Dr. King’s leadership, and criticized various Southern officials for violating the rights of African Americans. The advertisement contained several factual inaccuracies which became the basis for a suit for defamation by a Montgomery police commissioner. After a jury trial that found in favor of the plaintiff and a denial for the defendants’ motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court of Alabama sustained the holding on appeal, stating that “[t]he First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution does not protect libelous publications.”
The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice William Brennan, reviewed the matter “against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle 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 government and public officials.” Noting that the advertisement at hand would qualify for constitutional protection, the Court considered whether its inaccuracies had forfeited that constitutional protection. The Court, in a unanimous 9-0 decision, established that statements under such circumstances involving a public-figure plaintiff must be false and made with “actual malice,”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/new_york_times_v_sullivan_(1964)
Strong debate. Thanks for posting.