“There is no First Amendment right to defame a person” UNLESS that person is a “public figure,” in which case such defamation is “political speech”? Am I correct about this? So where is the line between a “private” person and a “public” one? You’re a published author — what can I get away with in talking about you? 🧐
"Public figures" which may include politicians, but also celebrities and other notorious figures, get much less protection under the defamation laws. In general, to sustain a defamation claim, they have to prove that the defamation was knowingly or recklessly false.
Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for you, the Aspen Beat merely aspires to be a public figure. 😄
Any politician in favor of making “disinformation” illegal should be careful what they wish for. When you lie for a living, you probably shouldn’t push such regulations. Hillary could end up in jail for things she has falsely accused Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, and countless others of. Media members could be prosecuted for the “good people on both sides” narrative. And how about pretty much every campaign ad? Those constantly lie and defame opponents.
Jeremy: I think politicians are EXEMPT from lying about almost anything---they made themselves immune. I may have misunderstood this, but it goes back to Sen. Reid from NV LYING about Romney's tax returns. When pointed out that he blatantly lied, he laughed and said "he lost, didn't he?"
This article needs to be published in every newspaper, stated on every TV news program, and every podcast/internet talk show! People are 99.99% ignorant and 99.99% of that is due to a totally biased media.
You can indeed shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater whether there is a fire or not. It all just depends upon the circumstances.
If you are in a crowded theater and you smell and/or see smoke, then based upon the notion that where there is smoke there is a fire, then you must shout “fire!” in order to alert everyone to evacuate the theater. If there is an actual fire, then of course shouting “fire!” makes complete sense.
What if you’re an actor on stage portraying say a French officer in Les Miserables? The actor then shouts “fire!” to a squad of soldier actors firing their rifles upon the Parisian barricades erected on the stage. Nope. No crime here either. Yet somebody just shouted “fire!” in a crowded theater when there was no fire.
But all of this is too academic, and this “you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater” is just so cliche and tiresome. Let’s at least have some fun and replace the four letter word FIRE with another four letter word instead.
I always liked the 1958 movie “The Blob” so let’s at least have some fun and say “you cannot shout Blob in a crowded theater.” Or perhaps you can indeed “shout Blob in a crowded theater” especially if you are Steve McQueen.
Steve McQueen … now there was a badass, an icon of American manhood. Every red-blooded American woman wanted him … and every red-blooded American man wanted to be him. Beware of the Blob! The Blob may just be that 300 lb. cat lady sitting right behind you in the cinema. 😼
I think it was “The Tingler” in which the shouted warning was followed by the actual presence of tinglers in the theater— pulled on strings up the aisles by ushers. Totally cheesy.
Meanwhile, blobs are appearing in the pages of Vogue and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Beware!
I remember “The Tingler” with Vincent Price … the PR driven producer/director William Castle liked having such gimmicks to get his movies to “go viral” in the 1950s era. Your comment about blobs remind me of another very recent write-up by Ken LaCorte on that very same topic.
Glenn’s column today could be subheadlined “Law, for Dummies” 🤣
The exceptions I had previously always thought of were slander, liable and defamation. I never thought about perjury and false advertising as things that were not protected but I can see how they are exceptions to the First Amendment also.
And I have not yet heard any Republicans over state this issue but I’ve no doubt that some may have. There’s a reason Republicans are called the stupid party. sigh 🫤
The big issue of our day in this category is all the antisemitic vitriol such as many places saw yesterday. At what point does antisemitic speech become *not* protected? Waiting until there are gas chambers is too late.
It's important to recognize that the First Amendment does not apply to non-governmental restrictions on speech.
Therefore, most businesses have the right to fire people for saying things the business doesn't like. A business can normally fire an employee for anti-semitic Facebook posts (or, for that matter, anti-Kamala posts).
That's where the market comes into play. Businesses that tolerate anti-Semitism, for example, or that persecute Christians, should be publicized and shunned.
I understand the distinction between govt attempting to violate free speech versus a private company which can set their own criteria. But just as the danger posed (in a presumably private business) of falsely shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre likely resulting in injuries, I wonder if the courts have determined where the line is drawn for what speech would be judged to be dangerous incitement, a la the 'River to the sea' protests? Antisemitic incidents are up multiple-fold nationwide and Jewish people have already been killed and injured.
“There is no First Amendment right to defame a person” UNLESS that person is a “public figure,” in which case such defamation is “political speech”? Am I correct about this? So where is the line between a “private” person and a “public” one? You’re a published author — what can I get away with in talking about you? 🧐
This hair splitting event occurred where my daughter lives. Great example of when people erroneously believe they have protection under a law when they don't. https://reason.com/2024/09/04/an-arizona-mom-was-arrested-for-criticizing-public-officials-at-a-city-council-meeting-now-shes-suing/
"Public figures" which may include politicians, but also celebrities and other notorious figures, get much less protection under the defamation laws. In general, to sustain a defamation claim, they have to prove that the defamation was knowingly or recklessly false.
Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for you, the Aspen Beat merely aspires to be a public figure. 😄
Thanks, Glenn.
Any politician in favor of making “disinformation” illegal should be careful what they wish for. When you lie for a living, you probably shouldn’t push such regulations. Hillary could end up in jail for things she has falsely accused Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, and countless others of. Media members could be prosecuted for the “good people on both sides” narrative. And how about pretty much every campaign ad? Those constantly lie and defame opponents.
Jeremy: I think politicians are EXEMPT from lying about almost anything---they made themselves immune. I may have misunderstood this, but it goes back to Sen. Reid from NV LYING about Romney's tax returns. When pointed out that he blatantly lied, he laughed and said "he lost, didn't he?"
This article needs to be published in every newspaper, stated on every TV news program, and every podcast/internet talk show! People are 99.99% ignorant and 99.99% of that is due to a totally biased media.
You can indeed shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater whether there is a fire or not. It all just depends upon the circumstances.
If you are in a crowded theater and you smell and/or see smoke, then based upon the notion that where there is smoke there is a fire, then you must shout “fire!” in order to alert everyone to evacuate the theater. If there is an actual fire, then of course shouting “fire!” makes complete sense.
What if you’re an actor on stage portraying say a French officer in Les Miserables? The actor then shouts “fire!” to a squad of soldier actors firing their rifles upon the Parisian barricades erected on the stage. Nope. No crime here either. Yet somebody just shouted “fire!” in a crowded theater when there was no fire.
But all of this is too academic, and this “you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater” is just so cliche and tiresome. Let’s at least have some fun and replace the four letter word FIRE with another four letter word instead.
I always liked the 1958 movie “The Blob” so let’s at least have some fun and say “you cannot shout Blob in a crowded theater.” Or perhaps you can indeed “shout Blob in a crowded theater” especially if you are Steve McQueen.
Steve McQueen … now there was a badass, an icon of American manhood. Every red-blooded American woman wanted him … and every red-blooded American man wanted to be him. Beware of the Blob! The Blob may just be that 300 lb. cat lady sitting right behind you in the cinema. 😼
https://youtu.be/GODDLgM1gKo?si=Mpca-_Bd_LByI52R
I think it was “The Tingler” in which the shouted warning was followed by the actual presence of tinglers in the theater— pulled on strings up the aisles by ushers. Totally cheesy.
Meanwhile, blobs are appearing in the pages of Vogue and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Beware!
I remember “The Tingler” with Vincent Price … the PR driven producer/director William Castle liked having such gimmicks to get his movies to “go viral” in the 1950s era. Your comment about blobs remind me of another very recent write-up by Ken LaCorte on that very same topic.
See: https://kenlacorte.substack.com/p/how-did-body-positivity-go-off-the
Yep. We started with the same very reasonable premise regarding same-sex-attracted people (“Don’t be cruel to . . . “), and look where that got us.
I'm running out of clever ways to praise Glenn' brilliant writing, so, I say only, brilliant article, just brilliant.
Glenn’s column today could be subheadlined “Law, for Dummies” 🤣
The exceptions I had previously always thought of were slander, liable and defamation. I never thought about perjury and false advertising as things that were not protected but I can see how they are exceptions to the First Amendment also.
And I have not yet heard any Republicans over state this issue but I’ve no doubt that some may have. There’s a reason Republicans are called the stupid party. sigh 🫤
The big issue of our day in this category is all the antisemitic vitriol such as many places saw yesterday. At what point does antisemitic speech become *not* protected? Waiting until there are gas chambers is too late.
It's important to recognize that the First Amendment does not apply to non-governmental restrictions on speech.
Therefore, most businesses have the right to fire people for saying things the business doesn't like. A business can normally fire an employee for anti-semitic Facebook posts (or, for that matter, anti-Kamala posts).
That's where the market comes into play. Businesses that tolerate anti-Semitism, for example, or that persecute Christians, should be publicized and shunned.
I understand the distinction between govt attempting to violate free speech versus a private company which can set their own criteria. But just as the danger posed (in a presumably private business) of falsely shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre likely resulting in injuries, I wonder if the courts have determined where the line is drawn for what speech would be judged to be dangerous incitement, a la the 'River to the sea' protests? Antisemitic incidents are up multiple-fold nationwide and Jewish people have already been killed and injured.
Is there any country that does have more Robert speech protection? I did not think there was.
Great explanation, but I agree that this should be reproduced for every publication, public meeting and classroom curriculum