Judge Clarence Thomas disagreed with the court’s refusal to open the case.
“In that case, I would give the certiorari a revision of the standard of ‘actual malice,'” Thomas wrote. “This case is one of many showing how the New York Times and its descendants have allowed media organizations and interest groups to ‘throw false slander on public figures almost with impunity.'”
He continued: “The SPLC’s designation as a ‘hate group’ combines Coral Ridge’s Christian ministry with groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis. It puts Coral Ridge in an interactive, online “Hate Map” and causes specific financial damage to Coral Ridge by excluding it from AmazonSmile’s donation program. However, unable to meet the “almost impossible” standard of actual malice imposed by this court, Coral Ridge cannot hold SPLC responsible for what it claims to be an outright lie. “
Thomas and Judge Neil Gorsuch had previously called on judges to reconsider the breadth of the ruling – which required public figures to show “real malice” before succeeding in a defamation lawsuit against a newspaper or individual.
The case was filed by a non-profit Christian ministry – Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. – which broadcasts a television program with previously recorded messages of the late founder of the group, Dr. D. James Kennedy.
The group tried to sue the Southern Poverty Law Center for defamation, calling it Coral Ridge a “hate group” – a designation that appears on its website and is used in some of its fundraising materials, publications and training programs. In court documents, the center says Coral Ridge calls homosexual behavior “illegal,” “abominable,” and “shameful.”
Coral Ridge lost in lower courts and subsequently filed a petition with the Supreme Court requesting a review of the defamation standard.
The “genuine malice” standard of this court, devised for a specific time and purpose, is outdated and does not serve any of the interests it is intended to protect by restricting individuals from filing defamation actions against other private companies or individuals. “David C. Gibbs III, a lawyer for Coral Ridge, told the judges. He said the decision “no longer acts as a bulwark for the protection of civil rights” but instead “a sword used for the impunity of public figures while hiding behind this Court’s erroneous view of the First Amendment.”
Lawyers for the Southern Legal Center for Poverty objected that court precedents “disprove the idea that actual malice constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for plaintiffs to defame public figures.”
“The court also acknowledged that issues of certain religious views on homosexuality are of considerable public interest and that free and open debate in this area is essential,” they said.
This story has been updated with additional information.
CNN’s Tierney Sneed and Chandelis Duster contributed to this report.
Add Comment