7 Comments
User's avatar
Jay Moore's avatar

I think the idea behind Sullivan is good and beneficial. But I strongly object to courts making rulings on the basis of social benefit rather than legality. Bad laws (or absence of good ones) must be allowed to have bad consequences. Otherwise, the perverse incentive is for Congress to pass bad laws or none at all for political benefit and let the courts fix any ill effects. Reverse Sullivan and make Congress enact it.

Expand full comment
James Quinn's avatar

Donald Trump, in addition to the Christian Nationalists who populate his movement are together the absolute exemplar of the reasons why the First Amendment is so crucial to our Republic. Those of us who defend all segments of the First are, in fact, Trump’s ‘enemies within’.

More power to all of us!

Expand full comment
Ralph J Hodosh's avatar

The author writes about a symptom of larger societal problems. First, we in the US have moved from being overly litigious to being extremely litigious as a society. Second, partisans on the right and left willfully confuse being wrong with lying when criticizing the opposition, which I suppose

is ironic.

Expand full comment
Vladan Lausevic's avatar

It is all part of the authoritarian playbook

Expand full comment
Vincent kotsubo's avatar

Won't overturning Sullivan work both ways? Won't this put right wing news organizations at risk also?

Expand full comment
Jim Gerlich's avatar

The author just couldn't keep himself from denigrating the Supreme Court by getting in a little cheep shot -- "high-handed" which, for me, exposed his hand as a name-caller and not a serious thinker. Why does someone whose only credential is "incoming law student" get a platform on a thoughtful blog like Persuasion?

Expand full comment
Sam Kahn's avatar

‘Cause he’s a good writer and sharp thinker.

Expand full comment