Yorbing Staff, Thursday February 21, 2019
Bill Cosby’s case had the harshest sentence ever, while Harvey Weinstein and Brett Kavanaugh got promotion and freedom. What kind of system is this? See Thomas Clarence’s argument here:
WNYC The Takeaway Feb 21, 2019
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas injected new life into an old argument this week. After the Supreme Court refused to hear a defamation case, Thomas wrote a concurrent opinion arguing that the landmark 1964 SCOTUS case, New York Times v Sullivan, was in need of a judicial overhaul.
The case, which took on the newspaper’s role in covering the Civil Rights movements, established broad protections for a free press.
While Thomas was alone in his opinion, it sent a chilling message to journalists, who have come under renewed attack in the era of Donald Trump.
Margaret Sullivan, a media columnist at The Washington Post, and John Q. Barrett, a constitutional law professor at St. John’s University, join the program to discuss the history of the case, and its impacts on journalism today.