New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/
Quote:
|
A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false
|
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/323/
Quote:
|
Petitioner was also not a public figure. Absent clear evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community and pervasive involvement in ordering the affairs of society, an individual should not be deemed a public figure for all aspects of his life.
|
Those are the big Supreme Court cases. In
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan it established the "actual malice" standard for public officials. In
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. it extended to public figures including those who had gain notoriety. In a nut shell. Feel free to correct me any smart people.
So Rittenhouse would not need to prove he isn't racist, he would have to prove it was unreasonable to assume he was/is. Which is very much ironic given the case against him in my opinion. And I think I already shown I made up my mind when he's partying with Proud Boys throwing up a symbol that had been co-opted by racists, I mean he wouldn't stand a chance if I was on the jury
