In Restoring the First Amendment, Carson Holloway contends that the Supreme Court should revisit and reject the “actual malice” doctrine introduced in the famed libel case, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). Though many have heralded Sullivan as a landmark ruling in defense of First Amendment freedoms, Holloway contends that the Court in this case erred radically in its interpretation of the Constitution. According to the Sullivan Court’s novel “actual malice” standard, to recover damages certain libel plaintiffs—public officials and public figures—must show not only that they were victims of defamatory falsehood, but also that their defamers acted with knowledge that the publication was false, or at least with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. As Holloway demonstrates, the Sullivan doctrine’s two-tier system of libel law—with one standard for ordinary persons and another for the prominent—that has no roots in the original understanding of the freedom of the press, or in the tradition of American law that prevailed from the Founding up to the time the Sullivan ruling was handed down. This tradition held more simply and consistently that libel was an exercise not of liberty but of license, and hence outside the scope of the freedom of the press. Holloway concludes that a Supreme Court committed to interpreting the Constitution faithfully—that is, according to its text, original meaning, and historical understanding—must reject New York Times v. Sullivan as a product of judicial policymaking untethered to the real meaning of the First Amendment.
Les informations fournies dans la section « Synopsis » peuvent faire référence à une autre édition de ce titre.
Carson Holloway is Department Chair and Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska, Omaha and a Washington Fellow in the Claremont Institute's Center for the American Way of Life. He is the author of Hamilton versus Jefferson in the Washington Administration: Completing the Founding or Betraying the Founding? (Cambridge University Press, 2015). He is co-editor, with Bradford P. Wilson, of The Political Writings of Alexander Hamilton (Cambridge University Press, 2017) and The Political Writings of George Washington (Cambridge University Press, 2023). He has held visiting fellowships in Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and at the Heritage Foundation. His scholarly articles have appeared in the Review of Politics, Interpretation, and Perspectives on Political Science, and he has written public commentary for The New Criterion, First Things, National Affairs, Public Discourse, National Review, Law and Liberty, The Federalist, the American Spectator, and the American Conservative.
Les informations fournies dans la section « A propos du livre » peuvent faire référence à une autre édition de ce titre.
Vendeur : Omaha Library Friends, Omaha, NE, Etats-Unis
hardcover. Etat : As New. Book appears to be unread. Binding is tight and square. Contents are crisp, clean, complete and undamaged. Book was donated to Friends of Omaha Public Library. N° de réf. du vendeur 260723010
Quantité disponible : 1 disponible(s)
Vendeur : GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, Etats-Unis
Etat : As New. Unread book in perfect condition. N° de réf. du vendeur 50854701
Quantité disponible : Plus de 20 disponibles
Vendeur : GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, Etats-Unis
Etat : New. N° de réf. du vendeur 50854701-n
Quantité disponible : Plus de 20 disponibles
Vendeur : INDOO, Avenel, NJ, Etats-Unis
Etat : New. N° de réf. du vendeur 9781641775038
Quantité disponible : 20 disponible(s)
Vendeur : BargainBookStores, Grand Rapids, MI, Etats-Unis
Hardback or Cased Book. Etat : New. No Liberty to Libel: The Constitutional Case Against New York Times V. Sullivan. Book. N° de réf. du vendeur BBS-9781641775038
Quantité disponible : 5 disponible(s)
Vendeur : Rarewaves.com USA, London, LONDO, Royaume-Uni
Hardback. Etat : New. In 1964 the Supreme Court radically altered its interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the famed libel case, New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court ruled that public officials claiming to be victims of defamation would be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens. They must prove not only that they were victims of defamatory falsehood, but also that their defamers acted with "actual malice": knowledge that their claim was false, or at least a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. As a result of this ruling, newspapers cannot now be easily held liable for false defamatory statements about politicians, celebrities, or other public figures.Though many have heralded Sullivan as a landmark ruling in defense of First Amendment freedoms, in No Liberty to Libel, Carson Holloway argues that the Supreme Court erred dangerously in its interpretation of the Constitution. Holloway contends that the Court should revisit and reject the Sullivan doctrine. Holloway demonstrates that the Sullivan doctrine's two-tier system of libel law-with one standard for ordinary persons and another for the prominent-has no roots in the original understanding of the freedom of the press, or in the tradition of American law that prevailed for most of our history. This tradition held more simply and consistently that libel was an exercise not of liberty but of license, and hence outside the scope of the freedom of the press. A Supreme Court committed to interpreting the Constitution faithfully-that is, according to its text, original meaning, and historical understanding- must reject New York Times v. Sullivan as a product of judicial policymaking untethered to the real meaning of the First Amendment. N° de réf. du vendeur LU-9781641775038
Quantité disponible : 3 disponible(s)
Vendeur : Rarewaves USA, HEBRON, KY, Etats-Unis
Hardback. Etat : New. In 1964 the Supreme Court radically altered its interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the famed libel case, New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court ruled that public officials claiming to be victims of defamation would be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens. They must prove not only that they were victims of defamatory falsehood, but also that their defamers acted with "actual malice": knowledge that their claim was false, or at least a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. As a result of this ruling, newspapers cannot now be easily held liable for false defamatory statements about politicians, celebrities, or other public figures.Though many have heralded Sullivan as a landmark ruling in defense of First Amendment freedoms, in No Liberty to Libel, Carson Holloway argues that the Supreme Court erred dangerously in its interpretation of the Constitution. Holloway contends that the Court should revisit and reject the Sullivan doctrine. Holloway demonstrates that the Sullivan doctrine's two-tier system of libel law-with one standard for ordinary persons and another for the prominent-has no roots in the original understanding of the freedom of the press, or in the tradition of American law that prevailed for most of our history. This tradition held more simply and consistently that libel was an exercise not of liberty but of license, and hence outside the scope of the freedom of the press. A Supreme Court committed to interpreting the Constitution faithfully-that is, according to its text, original meaning, and historical understanding- must reject New York Times v. Sullivan as a product of judicial policymaking untethered to the real meaning of the First Amendment. N° de réf. du vendeur LU-9781641775038
Quantité disponible : 19 disponible(s)
Vendeur : Grand Eagle Retail, Bensenville, IL, Etats-Unis
Hardcover. Etat : new. Hardcover. In 1964 the Supreme Court radically altered its interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the famed libel case, New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court ruled that public officials claiming to be victims of defamation would be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens. They must prove not only that they were victims of defamatory falsehood, but also that their defamers acted with actual malice: knowledge that their claim was false, or at least a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. As a result of this ruling, newspapers cannot now be easily held liable for false defamatory statements about politicians, celebrities, or other public figures.Though many have heralded Sullivan as a landmark ruling in defense of First Amendment freedoms, in No Liberty to Libel, Carson Holloway argues that the Supreme Court erred dangerously in its interpretation of the Constitution. Holloway contends that the Court should revisit and reject the Sullivan doctrine. Holloway demonstrates that the Sullivan doctrines two-tier system of libel lawwith one standard for ordinary persons and another for the prominenthas no roots in the original understanding of the freedom of the press, or in the tradition of American law that prevailed for most of our history. This tradition held more simply and consistently that libel was an exercise not of liberty but of license, and hence outside the scope of the freedom of the press. A Supreme Court committed to interpreting the Constitution faithfullythat is, according to its text, original meaning, and historical understanding must reject New York Times v. Sullivan as a product of judicial policymaking untethered to the real meaning of the First Amendment. Shipping may be from multiple locations in the US or from the UK, depending on stock availability. N° de réf. du vendeur 9781641775038
Quantité disponible : 1 disponible(s)
Vendeur : California Books, Miami, FL, Etats-Unis
Etat : New. N° de réf. du vendeur I-9781641775038
Quantité disponible : Plus de 20 disponibles
Vendeur : PBShop.store UK, Fairford, GLOS, Royaume-Uni
HRD. Etat : New. New Book. Shipped from UK. Established seller since 2000. N° de réf. du vendeur CW-9781641775038
Quantité disponible : 2 disponible(s)