MURDER THE TRUTH

A searching account of the modern right-wing push to silence criticism by suing for libel.

Wrote jurist Robert Bork in 1984, libel suits “may threaten the public and constitutional interest in free, and frequently rough, discussion.” That rough discussion, notes New York Times business investigative reporter Enrich, has lately included revelations that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is the recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars in unreported gifts and that Justice Samuel Alito’s home was flying “a flag associated with the January 6 uprising…just as he was poised to hear a high-­stakes case about the attempted insurrection.” Knowing of both scandals, Enrich holds, is most definitely in the public interest—and precisely the sort of thing that Alito and Thomas’ fellow ideologues are trying to suppress through libel lawsuits that may or may not be mere nuisances but that would drain the resources of most small publications, dissuading investigation. Enrich reminds us that current libel laws require proof that a defending party had “actually malicious” intent, a requirement that dates only to a Supreme Court ruling in 1964; in Britain the standard of proof is much lower, which explains why so much “libel tourism” takes place there, even as New York Times v. Sullivan provided a bulwark protecting the press. As recently as 2010, Congress unanimously passed a law “celebrating the country’s commitment to defending Americans from weaponized libel claims.” But then came a “freshening stream,” as Bork put it, of claims funded by wealthy right-wing sponsors that, in one notable instance, crushed the anti-establishment Gawker website. That stream is quickening with the resurgence of Donald Trump, who has promised to alter libel laws “so when they [i.e., journalists] write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”

A revealing look at a campaign intended to stifle the First Amendment in favor of those in power.