Opinion: Expanding the libel laws would undermine journalists

It is no secret that President Donald Trump and many media outlets have been at each other’s throats for the duration of his presidency. Trump singlehandedly popularized the term “fake news,” a term he uses frequently when describing the media’s negative and misguiding coverage of himself. 

“Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost,” Trump tweeted in September 2018. “Don’t know why Washington politics don’t change libel laws?”

Libel has been legally defined by the court as “publishing an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.”

However, sadly for Trump, it is much harder for a public figure to win a libel lawsuit than it is for a private individual. This was decided in the Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. 

In this case, the Court decided that proof of actual malice is required in a libel lawsuit involving public officials or matters of public concern. Later, in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the burden of proof was put on the public figure to prove that malice exists in the case of an untruth being published. 

Earlier this year, Justice Clarence Thomas discussed the current libel laws, saying the Courts decision had no basis in the Constitution. However, based in the Constitution or not, the current libel laws serve an important purpose. They exist to protect two of the most fundamental American rights: freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

The justices involved in the New York Times v. Sullivan case wrote that the limitations on libel laws reflect their “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.”

The media serves an age-old role as the “watchdog” of the government. These current libel laws exist so that media professionals can do their jobs without constant terror of getting any little detail wrong. If someone in the media did, for example, completely make up stories or form a false image of a person as Trump said, they could be punished under the current libel laws.

In most cases, if a media outlet does get information wrong, they will issue an apology or another media outlet will call them out on that error. Unfortunately, the prominence of social media has presented a problem when it comes to controlling libel in the media. In recent months, there have been a medley of truly fake reports about both Trump and other prominent political figures. Traditionally, this could be remedied with an apology letter or recanting of words, but not anymore. 

By the time the news organization may decide to apologize, the story has already gone viral across social media platforms. 

However, the libel laws do serve an important purpose. If journalists and newscasters could be sued for every little error they publish about a public figure or official, it could cause them to shy away from controversial, risky topics that concern the public. We need a healthy dialogue in this country, and the best way to be informed is to hear both sides of the story, regardless of the political or social side of the issue.

The tension between politicians and journalists is good for American democracy, to a point. It proves that both sides are doing their jobs of informing the public about information that they need to know. The founding fathers created a system of checks and balances within the constitution, and the American people created their own system of checks and balances in the media. 

The current libel laws are more than adequate to allow the spread of good information while still protecting the subjects of news.