Defamation Should Have No First Amendment Protections
By definition, defamation is a false attack on somebody’s reputation that causes loss of good name, humiliation, disgrace, mental suffering, or public ridicule. Libel cases should prove its falsity and that should be the end of it. Using somebody’s identifier should not be a tactic to sell product or gain viewers. Reasons why defamation should have no First Amendment protection include: trickery to improve the company’s image, teardown of another’s reputation, and a tarnished personal legacy on both parties involved.
Companies use playground maneuvers to gain popularity. As the hackneyed quote says, “any publicity is good publicity.” Media outlets are now grown on misleading stories about public figures. It does not only give attraction to papers, such as The National Enquirer, but it shows a false representation of the exploited figures. This should be seen as a spotlighted public issue, as people trust the media to present valid information to them. Recently, a story was released by Al-Jazeera America claiming multiple athletes use HGH to enhance their performance and heal their bodies. Al-Jazeera hadn’t been doing as well as they expected in the new market. Did they release this story to improve their status? After three defamation cases against them, they closed company doors. They, in turn, shattered their American legacy. For the plaintiff, defendant, and the public, defamation losing First Amendment rights would be a win.
Comentários