In my torts class, we discuss the often uncertain line between ordinary citizens and public figures. The latter classification places a person under a higher standard to prove defamation. This week, the South Carolina Supreme Court handed down a major ruling in Cruce v. Berkeley County School Dist. that sharply curtailed the definition of a public official and a public figure in a case involving a high school football coach.
Jeffrey L. Cruce, the head football coach and athletic director for Berkeley High School, triggered some controversy in 2015 when he implemented a “no punt” strategy for the football team, a change that became increasingly unpopular as the team racked up heavy losses. In December 2015, Cruce was sent a letter advising him he was being relieved as coach and athletic director. He was reassigned to a position as a middle school guidance counselor. The legal problem arose when, on January 7, 2016, Berkeley High athletic trainer Chris Stevens sent an email to forty-five people, including administrators, athletic department employees, and volunteer coaches that suggested that Cruce had left liability issues for the district over his concerns with his file maintenance and integrity. Cruce sued for $200,000.
The district made predictable claims that Cruce was a public official and, if not, a full or limited public figure.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court crafted the actual malice standard that required public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
The standard was later extended to public figures. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).
In creating this higher burden, the Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. Public figures are viewed as having an enhanced ability to defend themselves and engaging in “self-help” in the face of criticism. The Court also viewed these figures as thrusting themselves into the public eye, voluntarily assuming the risk of heightened criticism. I have previously written about the continuing questions over the inclusion of the public figures with public officials in tort actions.
The first question is whether the public official label is appropriate for low-hanging fruit among paid public employees. The South Carolina Supreme Court said that it is not:
The precedent dealing with the definition of “public official” is imprecise, but “it cannot be thought to include all public employees.” The lead decision on the issue holds that the public official category applies “at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of government affairs.” To qualify as a public official, the plaintiff must occupy a position that “would invite public scrutiny and discussion of the person holding it, entirely apart from the scrutiny and discussion occasioned by the particular charges in the controversy.” Put another way, the position must be one that attracts public scrutiny above and beyond that of the rank and file government job, such that “the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the person” holding the position.
In deciding whether someone is a public official in the defamation context, it is helpful to keep in mind the reason behind the classification: to apply the actual malice standard only where society’s strong interest in free and open public debate about public issues outweighs the individual’s important interest in protecting his reputation. The right to protect one’s reputation, a vital strand of our national history, “reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being–a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.” …
We understand Cruce was a public employee and enjoyed media attention akin to that of many sports figures. But that does not transform him into a public official, a classification that would strip him of his right to protect his name from being defamed to the same extent as a private citizen. No matter how intense the public gaze may be upon sports figures, they do not have any official influence or decision-making authority about serious issues of public policy or core government functions, such as defense, public health and safety, budgeting, infrastructure, taxation, or law and order. It is these public issues and functions that the First Amendment recognizes as so essential to democracy that public debate about them and their policymakers should be unchecked, except where the speech is knowingly false or uttered with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, i.e. the “actual malice” standard of New York Times v. Sullivan.
As New York Times v. Sullivan explained, the actual malice rule protects “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Fielding a football team or devising an offensive strategy is not the type of public issue envisioned by the Framers of the First Amendment. Baseball may be the national pastime, but it and other sports are just that: pastimes. They are not forums for civic concerns, and sports figures—regardless of how far and wide their fame may spread—are not public officials….
The court then said that Cruce is also not a public figure — full or limited:
Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts (1967) … held that the head football coach at the University of Georgia (who was privately paid and not a public employee) was a “public figure” in a defamation case involving allegations of bribery. Cruce could not be an all-purpose “public figure” as that term of art from Butts was later clarified as limited to those who “have assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society … [or] occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974). Nor is he that unicorn of defamation law, the “involuntary public figure,” a species Gertz described as “exceedingly rare,” and some now believe to be extinct….
[Cruce is also not] a limited public figure, … one who “voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.” The rationale for requiring limited public figures to prove actual malice is that such persons have not only assumed the risk by voluntarily entering the forefront of a public controversy where it is essential that speech be unbridled, but they also have superior access to media outlets to defend themselves and express counter speech….
We believe a [good] test for determining whether one is a limited public figure considers three things: (1) whether the plaintiff voluntarily injected herself into and played a prominent role in a public controversy, defined as a controversy whose resolution affects a substantial segment of the public; (2) whether the defamation occurred after the plaintiff voluntarily entered the controversy but while still embroiled in it; and (3) whether the defamation was related to the controversy….
We conclude Cruce is not a limited public figure under this test …. First, no public controversy was present. The merit of Cruce’s coaching strategy was not a controversy that affected large segments of society. Second, even if a public controversy existed over Cruce’s coaching strategy, Stevens’ defamatory comments related to Cruce’s paperwork skills, not his gridiron acumen….
The ruling on the public figure element could prove the most controversial. In many areas of the country, high school and college football coaches are better known and more influential than most public officials. They are often quoted in the media and attend public events. Some of us continue to have misgivings about the inclusion of public figures under the actual malice standard, but (if such inclusion is accepted) it is hard not to see sporting figures as public figures on the local level. Indeed, Wally Butts (the defendant in Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts) was arguably the most famous individual in Georgia as the coach for the Georgia Bulldogs. Obviously a local high school coach does not come close to such fame, but on the local level they are the focus of similar debate and distinction.
This is an interesting case in seeking to limited these terms and one that is likely to be cited in other jurisdictions as persuasive authority.
Recession A No-Show
Republicans Will Have To Go Without
Last quarter’s gross domestic product showed growth of 5.2%. That’s a number that dwarfs all other pre-Covid recovery numbers in recent memory. Unemployment is at a record low. Each month the economy is adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs. There are millions of more open jobs available today compared with 2019.
Yes, prices are higher, but inflation is down from a 9% annual rate to about 3%, so whatever the Federal Reserve did to offset the treasury’s spending on fiscal programs seems to be working. The stock market is near all-time highs, as is household wealth. Credit card delinquency rates are lower than they’ve been for the past 30 years as are delinquencies on all loans across the banking system.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/21/republicans-healthy-us-economy
From A Linked Story In Article:
Donald Trump recently said he hoped for a “crash” and that it would “be in the next 12 months because I don’t want to be Herbert Hoover”.
Hip, Hip, Hooray!!!
Bidenomics is here to stay!
Oh, happy day!
You go, boy!
Run on that!
“. . . whatever the Federal Reserve did to offset . . .”
About tripled interest rates (which the Left evades). Which added to 2023 being the “year of bankruptcies” (personal and corporate).
Been to a grocery store lately? Or paid an energy bill?
P.S. That unemployment rate is a lie.
The Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional, and it represents pure antithetical dictatorial communism in direct diametric opposition to the Constitution.
Please cite the Constitution for even a scintilla of constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act.
Sam,
That article was absolute crap.
In what alternative universe do you live?
Jonathan: It’s bitter cold in Ohio these days. So in Bryan, Ohio a pastor does the humane thing–he has opened his church doors to the homeless. And that got him in trouble with the Bryan City Zoning Commission.
Pastor Chris Avell is being charged with 18 zoning violations by the BCZC that says the church is zoned as a “central business” and, therefore, the homeless can’t use the church as a refuge from the cold. Avell pleaded not guilty at his arraignment and another hearing is scheduled in the next 30-45 days.
Ohio is controlled by a heartless GOP. Abortion was recently banned and the GOP Ohio AG tried to prosecute a doctor for performing an abortion for a child who came from Indiana. So when it comes to the homeless in Ohio it’s all about the “Grinch”. Avell’s attorney, Jeremy Dys, said this about the Commission’s actions: “The City would rather kick these folks to the curb in the cold outdoor months of December and early January than allow the church to remain open 24/7 to those who need it the most”.
Now in an ideal world, one with a heart, the BCZC could find a technical violation of the zoning ordinance but allow the homeless to remain inside the church until it warms up. Nope. They want to prosecute Paster Avell because he wants to keep folks from freezing outside. What would Jesus say about such heartlessness by the BCZC–about the need to care for “the least among us”? Ohio is not a welcoming place for either pregnant women or the homeless! It’s DJT country!
I live in Berkeley County and saw this on our local news. This man is so not a public figure that there has been no mention, let alone discussion of it, on the limited social media I follow or among my friends. I know it costs me money as a taxpayer but I’m happy he won.
Jonathan: Can we move on from high school football in S. Carolina? Thank you.
The second trial in the E .Jean Carroll case is winding down. DJT may or may not testify on Monday. The Vegas betting line is that he won’t. Either way it won’t make any difference. DJT is dead in the water–thanks to his attorney Alina Habba. She made a mess of his case. Her legal flubs–failing to make any coherent legal arguments, her failure to adhere to court protocols and court etiquette–all point to the inevitable outcome.
No matter, Alina has an answer for her critics. She was recently on a right-wing talk show and said this: “People ask me, would you rather be smart or pretty? And I said, easy, I’d rather be pretty because because I can fake being smart”. That pretty much says it all and why DJT continues to employ someone who who doesn’t know the first thing about lawyering. DJT likes “pretty” lawyers even if they don’t what their doing in a courtroom.
So for the second time DJT will be liable in the send E. Jean Carroll case. The punitive damages will hit DJT hard in the pocket book. Will that matter to the MAGA crowd? Nope. In March DJT will stand trial in NY DA Alvin Bragg’s criminal trial–over the hush payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. If convicted DJT could see some prison time. Will that matter to the MAGA crowd? Probably not. The MAGA crowd is a cult that worships at the feet of its leader.
“THREE MINUTES?”
E. Jean Carrol claimed that 29 years ago, in 1995 or 1996, her memory is irredeemably flawed by her own admission, a man pulled down her tights and raped her in less than three minutes in the Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York City, which confirmed that it had no surveillance footage of the alleged incident. No video, no witnesses, no evidence, no police report, no rape kit, etc. Sounds very similar to the curious case of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Sounds like more lawfare.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“After she suggested a handbag or a hat, the two reputedly moved on to the lingerie section and joked about the other trying some on. Carroll said they ended up in a dressing room together, the door of which was shut, and Trump forcefully kissed her, pulled down her tights and raped her before she was able to escape. She stated that the alleged incident lasted less than three minutes.” [2][11]
– Wiki
A unanimous jury ruled against Trump.
Trump chose not to testify, which allows the jury in a civil trial to make an adverse inference.
Multiple women testified in support of EJC’s description.
A unanimous jury ruled in favor of double-murderer Orenthal James Simpson.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, ruled against “Crazy Abe” Lincoln in the case of his preposterously, tyrannically, and dictatorially imposed suspension of habes corpus.
The abjectly biased, partial, and corrupt Supreme Court of 1869 ruled that not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession was unconstitutional, simply to further the Lincoln-Successor progressive goal of imposition of the principles of communism in America. Look around you at the overwhelming communism extant in America today. For your edification: 10th Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Secession is not delegated to the U.S., nor prohibited to the States, and is, therefore, reserved to the States. Secession is in the constitutional ratifications of at least three States.
______________
IFIFY
“A unanimous corrupt jury ruled against Trump.”
– Aninny
Apparently, E. Jean Carrol filed no rape complaint, no rape investigation occurred, no rape charges were brought by police, no individual was ever prosecuted for the “rape” of E. Jean Carrol. Ergo, no rape of E. Jean Carrol transpired.
Most women don’t report rape. Doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
“I am innocent.” “I did not do what I am accused of doing.” “She is making this up to sell her book.”
How can any statements along the above lines, about a public figure, be defamation?
Surely even a convicted person may maintain his innocence. Does compelled speech now go along with a guilty verdict?
He’s not being sued for saying “I am innocent” or “I did not do what I am accused of doing.”
He’s being sued because he continues to lie about her in defamatory ways, including “She is making this up to sell her book.” If he’d simply refrained from making comments about her, he would not be facing a defamation suit. But he cannot control his mouth.
You could be brighter. You think Trump is lying about her. Though I don’t have all of the history from decades ago, I think her claims are bogus, and if she believes them true, she should have dealt with them at the time of occurrence.
“She is making this up to sell her book.” This statement is an opinion and, based on her previous comments, a likely answer truth she omits.
I should not bother responding to one arising from the shite pot of anonymous blabs.
S. Meyer: Since you admit you don’t know all the facts surrounding E. Jean Carroll’s claims how can you possibly assert they are “bogus”? In the first trial a jury believed Carroll’s version that was backed up by other witnesses. DJT could have testified at the first trial but he refused. A jury is entitled to make adverse inferences from a defendant’s failure to testify. The Q for you is if Carroll’s claims were ‘bogus” why didn’t DJT testify and try to refute them?
“S. Meyer: Since you admit you don’t know all the facts surrounding E. Jean Carroll’s claims how can you possibly assert they are “bogus”?”
Dennis, you could be brighter. You don’t know all the facts either, so why are you commenting? I commented on the basis that the claim of rape was decades old and that she has not always been honest. I saw no proof of rape by Trump, but I did see evidence of “hysteria” from her and claims that are outrageous. That a jury can get a wrong answer is not a surprise to me based on how easy it is for a “pretend” lawyer like yourself to be so easily persuaded as well.
Then again, persuading you is not a problem, for you will link up to lies and use them as proof of your beliefs. You are an ideologue whether paid or not. Your voice is worthless because you are untrustworthy.
Why would DJT not testify? Ask him, but one has first to consider why this case was brought to trial. It is an abuse of our legal system.
S. Meyer: I’m not a “pretend” lawyer. Want to see my certificates to practice in both state and federal court? I am commenting because that is my right–just as you have the right to comment. But before you do you should get some facts straight. E. Jean Carroll’s claims were “decades old” but revived by the NY legislature that gave plaintiffs the right to come forward with their claims. It was made easier because DJT continued to defame EJC.
And you didn’t answer my Q. Why didn’t DJT testify in his own defense at the first trial? You know the answer. It’s because all his bluster and lies about EJC would have been exposed on cross examination.
DJT has a second chance to testify in the second trial on Monday. Do you think he will show up? If he doesn’t the Q will be answered. A second jury will find him liable for millions in punitive damages. And that’s not an “abuse of our legal system”!
“I’m not a “pretend” lawyer. Want to see my certificates to practice in both state and federal court?”
Sure, Dennis. Post your certificates to practice and the Bar you are associated with. I’m sorry, but I have seen your work product on the blog, and I do not find it impressive for a high school graduate.
For business reasons, I have dealt with many different lawyers, so I readily admit not all lawyers are bright or honest. I fired a good number. As an attorney, you should adhere to the facts; something needs to be added to your responses.
You have your right to comment, but you don’t have a right to create your facts. You need to catch that point, but it is probably too late in life for you to benefit.
“revived by the NY legislature”
That is a problem. But that is not the essential point that a lawyer should understand. The initial question is decades old and should not be returned to the front of the line. That politics entered into the claims is unfortunate. It demonstrates how the left has managed to distort the law.
“Why didn’t DJT testify in his own defense at the first trial?”
That is an answer you should already know: pretend counselor or counselor. Despite DJT’s innocence, it wouldn’t benefit him.
Yes, this case is an abuse of the legal system, not surprisingly, because the left is abusive all the time. The punishment might be in millions, but everything will be reviewed. Trump can afford millions, but the country can’t afford this type of cr-p. It’s all part of business, counselor. I am surprised that you don’t know that.
S. Meyer — You are wrong. Give it up.
David, what am I wrong about? Is Dennis a lawyer? If you have the information, provide it along with which Bar he is a member of. Don’t tell me Finn MacCool’s.
S. Meyer: Apparently, you have had some bad luck with lawyers–going through them like DJT who has a hard time finding competent attorneys. But it appears you had the good sense to fire the bad ones. So why does DJT hold on to Alina Habba despite here clear incompetence?
You say “you don’t have a right to create your facts”. This statement reveals a misunderstanding between facts and opinions. Facts are things that can be verified. For example, E. Jean Carroll filed 2 lawsuits against DJT. That’s a verifiable fact by checking the court records. If I say I believe DJT will be found liable in Carroll’s second defamation case that’s my opinion. If the jury finds for Carroll that then becomes a fact.
When Prof. Turley writes a column on a subject with which I am not familiar, I do some research. I read everything cited by the professor because he often misstates what he cites. Then I review other articles on the same subject to see what the controversy is all about. It is only then that I form an opinion–but based on verifiable facts. I don’t “invent” facts to justify my opinions.
Judging by your comments I doubt you do that kind of rigorous research. Otherwise, you would not make statements like “[d]espite DJT’s innocence, it wouldn’t benefit him” to testify. In the first EJC trial DJT was not found innocent. He was found liable for sexual assault and defamation and jury awarded EJC $5 million in damages. You can shout all day about DJT’s “innocence” but that doesn’t make it a verifiable fact!
“S. Meyer: Apparently, you have had some bad luck with lawyers–going through them like DJT who has a hard time finding competent attorneys.”
Dennis, the problem with many lawyers is their business experience is limited, and many need a more nuanced understanding of the law. It is challenging to know in advance who is good or bad. One frequently has to learn along the way as a good lawyer in one situation might be poor in another.
I do not have bad luck with lawyers. I have high standards and business needs that many lawyers need help relating to. I have to tell them what I need and many of the pitfalls.
“So why does DJT hold on to Alina Habba despite here clear incompetence? ”
Why do you say she is incompetent? Perhaps you need help understanding her job.
“You say “you don’t have a right to create your facts …”
You don’t, but you frequently create untrue facts. I don’t value your opinion because it is based on non-existent facts created when you mold your opinion to a fixed ideology. You are frequently far more wrong than right. That you wish to equate your knowledge with that of Professor Turley is preposterous.
“Judging by your comments I doubt you do that kind of rigorous research. ”
If that was so, you could prove me wrong, but you don’t while you are proven wrong all the time. I proved you wrong in the past, basing my statements on researched facts, but you ran away. That is sufficient to permit the blog to know that your points are thin at best and that you can’t hold your own. The ability to write sentences that are grammatically correct doesn’t necessarily equate to logical thinking or an ability to bring forth the needed facts.
DJT has been hit with prosecutorial misconduct, and where federal prosecutors do this, it should be stopped by the DOJ. Unfortunately, Garland has not demonstrated affinity with the Rule of Law. He should not be in charge of the DOJ, but under the crooked Biden Administration, he is.
What would be best for you would be to remove names and parties. Talk only about the most important policies you would like to see. Then look and see, not the words, but the deeds, without conclusions utilizing numbers that represent talking points. If you dealt in that fashion, we might get somewhere.
When was Trump convicted of rape?
Econis easy has decided that he is the new comment cop and he and only he gets to decide what people comment about.
Hey Econ, we have to dig through a hunder different people that insist on going by “Anonymous”, the least you can do is let those of us with names comment the way we want. Those of you that want to ignore us named people have it very easy to do so, the rest of us have to wade through all you lazy idiots that insist on remaining “Anonymous”. Cowards.
HullBobby,
Sorry, but I thought Econs response to our Ukraine troll was rather amusing.
Upstate, ok, I will grant you that one. But he has been hectoring others that have commented here solely because there is no other outlet for conservatives views and actual news stories that do damage to Democrats.
Upstate, I would like to know your opinion on all of the people that go by “Anonymous” on this site. I cannot figure out why this great site doesn’t just make it so you need to pick a name even as that still keeps us all anonymous.
That is my little nit to pick today. Keep up the good work, you are one of the reasons the Comments section is so enjoyable.
“there is no other outlet for conservatives views”
Sure there is. Volokh is an example.
HullBobby,
Concerning the “Anonymous” commenters, I try to generally ignore them and just scroll past.
However, our Ukraine troll, I feel he needs to be addressed for his desire for WWIII and his willingness to send everyone else into the meat grinder, except himself and his kin.
What I would like to see is if the good professor used some kind of paid subscription to comment on his blog. All those funds would then go towards some kind of scholarship for poor high school students of any race, either college or vocational school. The awarding criteria would be not only good grades, but maybe a written essay on the importance of the 1stA, the 2ndA, the Constitution, the packing of the SC, keeping a political party’s candidate off the ballot, or other issues.
I would gladly pay to comment if those funds were used in such a manner.
Why Upstate? All that anonymous jerk wants to do is see the world looking like his brain, burned to a crisp.
S. Meyer,
I would only say, him and those like him who want to see the world burned to a crisp, should have their faces held down on the searing hot cast iron pan first after watching their spouses and children held to the same.
There is a real difference between those of us who have served and those whom have not.
You’re free to ignore all anonymous comments if you dislike them.
Easy for you to say.
“You’re free to ignore all anonymous comments if you dislike them.”
That is true. I am also free to ignore tacks and nails in the roadway, along with people who come to indoor meetings and never shower. That is what you are: an annoyance.
Further, one has to think of the credibility of the anonymous commenter. If the anonymous person is so unwilling to create an unidentifiable alias, why should anyone listen to what they say? Many do because they like responding to ridiculous statements and correcting people who have no personal pride. Occasionally, there is an intelligent post from an anonymous commenter, but that is lost among the idiocracy of the anonymous group.
No wading is necessary. I scroll over every Anonymous comment, the usual named Lefties and one notoriously verbose conservative.
Ah yes, the criticism born of accelerating decompensation, low self-esteem, and the unmitigable inadequacy that engenders the ruthless pursuit of validation in the infinitely elusive, nay, impossible fantasy of phantom superiority. Please, and by all means, scroll. Scroll and skip the whole day long. From this day forward, may you ever be known as the “Scroller,” no, “Skippy,” yes, indubitably, “Skippy!”
Dear Prof Turley,
Defamation! Sueing someone, anyone, for ‘defamation’ in the ‘age of rage’ is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
Don’t know why public officials should have a higher burden than public figures to challenge outrageous claims of defamation. Trump should have to same right to challenge claims of ‘Hitler’ as Biden does for claims of ‘Genocide’, imo. Let the chips fall where they may.
[fyi. Speaking of defamation; ‘Anonymous’ defames me all the time (eg. calling me ‘dog’ and ‘Tom&Estivor’!).]
In the ‘Absence of Malice’ (good movie, btw), the distinction between public ‘officials’ and private ‘figures’ was explored in detail. Clearly, absent Paul Newman’s inspired legal challenge to public official defamation, the only sure way to resolve claims of ‘defamation’ is a pistol Duel at 30 steps.
At the very least, Duels would be a sure way to cut down on, frivolous, long-winded defamation torts .. . both public and private.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_duels_in_the_United_States#References
OT
$25 million given to the University of Pennsylvania Biden Center by the Chinese Communist Party in 2023.
And then Penn gave Biden a million dollars to (not) teach.
You are 100% correct. Your comment is off topic.
Brilliant!
Simply brilliant!
A tremendous contribution!
You can always post your thoughts on your blog. BTW, do you have your own blog?
Brilliant!
Simply brilliant!
A tremendous contribution!
Trump last night:
“And you will have, very seldom, but you will have the rogue -, we call it the rogue cop, the bad apple. And perhaps you’ll have that also with President. But there’s nothing you can do about that. You’re going to have to give the President, you’re going to have to allow a President, any President, to have immunity, so that that President can act and do what he feels and what his group of advisors feel is the absolute right thing. Otherwise you’re going to have Presidents that are totally impotent. And we’ve had enough of them already, we’ve had enough of them already. So having immunity is so important, and I hope the Supreme Court has the courage to do that.”
Or, you know, we could have laws that are written down that everyone, even cops and Presidents, has to follow.
We’re waiting for the DC Court of Appeals to rule on Trump’s argument that he has absolute immunity. Who knows whether SCOTUS will even grant cert.
On Face The Nation today:
Margaret Brennan, after playing the clip above of Trump repeatedly confusing Nikki Haley with (presumably) Nancy Pelosi:
“You said yesterday hearing this made you question Donald Trump’s mental fitness. Is that the first time you questioned his mental fitness?”
Nikki Haley:
“If you look recently, there have been multiple things. I mean he claimed Joe Biden was going to get us into World War II. I’m assuming he meant World War III. He said he ran against President Obama. He never ran against President Obama. He says the I’m the one that kept security from the Capitol on January 6. I was nowhere near the Capitol on January 6.”
Trump’s mentally unfit and wants to be able to break the law with no consequences. He will lose again in 2024, like he lost in 2020.
Trump on Viktor Orban:
“There’s a great man, a great leader in Europe, Viktor Orban. He’s the, he’s the Prime Minister of Hungary. He’s a very great leader, a very strong man. Some people don’t like him because he’s too strong. It’s nice to have a strong man running the country.”
Facts: Orban Is Putin’s main ally in Europe. Orban Is the most disliked and isolated leader in the EU, and Hungary under his leadership is the second poorest country in the EU.
Trump praises Orban like he praises Xi, Putin, and Kim Jong Un. Trump wishes that he could be a dictator.
The reason European leaders hate Orban is that he is a nationalist and loves his country and its people were there all globalists and despise the Common Man and think that a person from another country with no culture at all i’s just the same as an ethnic Frenchman, German Etc. Even if they despise the religion and cultureof tier hosts when they come in. we already have a dictator his name is Joseph Biden. if Putin did take over Western Europe it would be far better off than it is now he would give the boot to the hordes of Islamic Invaders.
How nice, an Islamophobe who prefers dictatorship to democracies.
Anonymous, you are playing the part of an anonymous fool. Seve-EM provided a position with his rationale. You came out of the shite pot only to throw shite and not disagree with any of his reasons. You must be the boozer.
A phobia is an irrational fear of something. the term islamophobic something that was invented entirely for the purpose of silencing any discussion which is the hallmark of far left progressives. You simply add Pho or phobia to a term and you no longer have to discuss its merits. no I’m Islamic a realist. 1,000 working class white girls raped by grooming gangs in northern England. Mass rape of Swedish women, 1200 German women raped by Islamic hordes in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2016. not to mention all the other terrorist acts in France and England. It’s not phobia when they actuallysay they want to in take over a country.As they have said in the Netherlands, Germany, France and the United Kingdom.
This constant prattling on a democracy is really quite amusing, we don’t live in a democracy we live in something that was intended to be a constitutional republic but has over the last 150 years turned into a corporate plutocracy. Outside of the druze and a few other minority Islamic traditions Our 7th Century barbarians. now we have Hamas supporters blocking the streets and airports .You are aware that in this so-called democracy we just had the FBI collude with the media to silence free speech. we’ve had the security apparatus turned into a tool of repression for anyone who does not fit their agenda. I am specifically speaking of Rieich Fuhrer Merritt Garland. That had 51 former Intel officers lie about 100 Biden’s laptop when they knew full well that it was not a Russian plant. I think you have a rational phobia.
Plenty of non-Muslims rape women, but you express no concern about them. You’re an Islamophobe.
And we do live in a democracy. Believe the Founders:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/
I won’t even bother with the rest of your garbage.
Rather than coming up with a valid counterargument, you are using the tu quoque fallacy invalidate their opponent’s criticisms by addressing them with another criticism. With this kind of argument, you find a way to attack your opponent instead of coming up with a logical reason to argue against their original claim.
You seem not to be able to present an intelligent argument factual basis. you think immediately into at homonyms or some crude fallacious reasoning. No rinstance no other countries don’t have problems with grooming gangs that rape thousand or more of their children. they don’t go on a rape spree and rape 1,200 women in one night.
Your comments that other countries have rape problems is acomplete non sequitur. We’re not talking about Nations we’re talking about a religion and it’s adherence actions. Muslims throughout Europe have engaged in this Mass raping.
In fact Islam is the only religion that I’m aware of that allows rape and actually encourages it in cases where the woman is an infidel. I have read the hadiths or at least a good number of them as well as the Quran in translation which is pretty much insane gobbledygook. I know some of these things are hard for you to follow cyou don’t seem to have the critical thinking skills necessary. When I said the country is a corporate photography of course it’s not officially a corporate plutocracy I said that it has evolved as such.
The term ‘Islamophobia’ is a powerful tool employed by Muslims to put their critics on the defensive. It effectively serves as a shield to protect Islam from scrutiny and silences those who question its tenets. Its origins trace back to the late 1970s when Iranian fundamentalists invented it with the deliberate intention of making Islam immune to criticism.
This term, reminiscent of totalitarian propaganda, intentionally lacks specificity, leaving it unclear whether it pertains to the religion itself, the belief system, or its adherents worldwide. ‘Islamophobia’ denies the reality of an Islamic offensive and suppresses the voices of Muslims who challenge the Koran, demand gender equality, or seek the freedom to practice their faith without oppression.
These fears are not irrational but grounded in reality. Muslims strategically exploit diversity politics and ecumenical dreams to advance their agenda. By invoking ‘Islamophobia,’ they aim to discredit and vilify their critics, all the while enjoying the support of multiculturalists and the cultural left. Consequently, ‘Islamophobia’ not only stifles legitimate discourse but also obstructs the acknowledgment of pressing societal issues, perpetuating harmful practices and ideologies. It is a potent weapon wielded to further the Islamic cause and silence dissenting voices.
Islamophobia is an ideological construct, a term strategically wielded to stifle critical thought and pave the way for a totalitarian future. iI’s a neologism
“Rather than coming up . . .”
From top to bottom, an excellent comment.
Calling someone an “Islamophobe” is an obvious ad hominem. And is an attempt to evade Islam’s irrational, tyrannical ideology, and its horrific actions. It’s akin to calling one who hates Hitler or Stalin a “dictatorphobe.”
“Calling someone an “Islamophobe” is an obvious ad hominem. ”
It isn’t. Ad hom is when you make an irrelevant attack about the person and then suggest that that irrelevant attack undermines the argument itself. It’s quite relevant that he’s an Islamophobe (e.g., he overgeneralizes from a subset of Muslims while ignoring that his claim is also true of another subset that he doesn’t criticize).
“It’s akin to calling one who hates Hitler or Stalin a “dictatorphobe.””
Faulty analogy. A phobia involves *excessive* fear/criticism/dislike? Can you name any dictator who’s been a healthy leader and non-dangerous? And if someone called me a dictatophobe, I wouldn’t object that the person is using “a powerful tool employed by [dictators] to put their critics on the defensive” and a “potent weapon wielded to further the [dictator] cause and silence dissenting voices.”
No, actually, it’s a valid response, not an example of tu quoque at all. Tu quoque is essentially an response that your argument cannot be valid because you’re a hypocrite. I didn’t suggest that your argument should be ignored because you, too, rape. Let me know if you need a link to a good resource on fallacies, so that you don’t mistakenly accuse someone of tu quoque again.
Again: you express concern about rape by Muslims but you don’t express concern about rape by non-Muslims, which makes your concern motivated by your dislike of Muslims, not your dislike of rape. And it takes a lot of gall to bring up the rape of children while ignoring the much larger number of children raped by pedophile priests, nor is the rape of children by Christians limited to Catholicism. Some Muslims rape, but most do not. Some people of other religions rape, but most do not. And when you condemn the former but not the latter, it makes you and Islamophobe.
“The term ‘Islamophobia’ is a powerful tool employed by Muslims to put their critics on the defensive.”
I’m Jewish, not Muslim, and people of all religions use the word “Islamophobia” when it’s relevant.
“It effectively serves as a shield to protect Islam from scrutiny and silences those who question its tenets.”
BS. You’re totally free to scrutinize Islam and Muslims as a group. But when you overgeneralize from a small subset (there are almost 2B Muslims in the world), and when you condemn Muslims for an act that’s also carried out by people of other religions, but you’re silent about the latter, it makes you an Islamophobe.
“Muslims strategically exploit diversity politics and ecumenical dreams to advance their agenda.”
Some do. Most don’t. And some people in other religions also do this (e.g., some evangelicals). Once again, you’re overgeneralizing, and you’re picking only the Muslims to criticize. You’re an Islamophobe.
And the word “Islamophobia” has been in use for over 100 years (check the Oxford English Dictionary if you doubt that — in addition to giving a definition, it notes early uses).
I don’t believe that you’re going to change your mind. I doubt that you’re going to change my mind (certainly not with the kinds of arguments you’ve presented so far). I’m not going to address the rest of your comment and don’t see the point of continuing this exchange.
Correction: I don’t believe that I’m going to change your mind.
“Correction: I don’t believe that I’m going to change your mind.”
You have a lot of difficulty changing sensible minds because you lose track of the data while providing juvenile ideas in an adult discussion.
Steve, I will add my two cents. Islamophobia is a propaganda move by CAIR, which is nothing more than a tentacle of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood’s anti-West hatred was revealed in the Holy Land Trials, where their documents were obtained stating their desire to destroy the West from within.
One needs to separate the Islamist from the peaceful Muslim, which can be difficult because, like all repressive forms of rule, they can lie. If one supports Sharia Law, then, in my opinion, that person is dangerous. If one supports the belief of one God without the desire to dominate, create Dhimmis or kill them, they can be like any other Christian or Jew.
Hamas-linked group partners with Chicago public schools to combat Islamophobia
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/hamas-linked-group-partners-cps-combat-islamophobia
“In a 2009 court ruling, a federal judge concluded, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas.” CAIR also was identified as a co-conspirator helping the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) – a former Islamic charity labeled a terrorist group by the FBI in 2001 – shower Hamas with millions of dollars.”
Upstate: This is an excellent addition to the conversation, thank you.
Lin and others,
Lin, I know you are a reader, so I will enclose a PDF of one of the many sources where one can read the Muslim Brotherhood Declaration. This pdf has an additional explanation. Below is an excerpt from the MB Declaration. The pdf is at https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CSP-Explanatory-Memorandum.pdf
I have provided other links before. This is one I thought was good for you to read. It is long, so if you scan it and verify the quote below, that is sufficient for our purposes.
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
I want to add that the Muslim Brotherhood is considered a terrorist organization by many Arab states. We tried to get our government to label the MB a terrorist organization that would impair its actions. Notable is that many people, some university professors considered moderate Muslims, were found to be supporting terrorist organizations. Some were tried and convicted.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1721810329204846854
Is he white? Say it ain’t so. A white nationalist, like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Mason, John Adams et al.?
I believe the topic is about a high school football coach in South Carolina.
Hungary is an “ally” of Russia? Where is the treaty? Agreeing with Putin on some issue or another is not being “an ally”.
I believe the topic is about a high school football coach in South Carolina.
Turley lets people post off-topic comments. If you don’t like them, ignore them.
True, however, the question is why can’t you stay on topic. You can always post your thoughts on your blog. BTW, do you have your own blog?
And tonight again: “It’s a little bit like the police: so you have a rogue cop. You know what a rogue cop is, very seldom, but you have bad people, you have people, no matter where, no matter what. In the church, you have some people that aren’t so good, right? But you have pe-, a rogue cop, or a bad apple, whatever. And what they do is they make it so that you catch, so that it can’t happen. And therefore everyone else is allowed to commit crimes, murders, like, at levels that we’ve never seen before. No, we’re going to have to do this immunity for the President. If you have a President that doesn’t have immunity, he’s never going to be free to do anything.”
So rogue cops, pedophile priests, and Presidents all need immunity, because otherwise police, priests and Presidents are too constrained and criminals will have free rein? Good argument there!
He’s obsessed with presidential immunity. He’d better not hold his breath waiting for the court to agree.
Jonathan: Everyone knows high school football is an important institution in South Carolina and other parts of the South–especially in rural towns. Berkeley is no exception. The Friday night football game is a big event. When the home team wins coaches and players gain hero status. Coaches are interviewed in local newspapers and on TV. They are invited to address the local Rotary club luncheons on “civic pride” and “team spirit”.
So it’s counterintuitive that Coach Cruce is not a “public figure” in the life of Berkeley. But that is what the SC Supreme Court seems to think. The Court declares that sports figures “do not have any official influence or decision-making authority about serious issues of public policy or core government functions,…” That’s not the test in Sullivan. It’s whether a public figure voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself”. The Court in Cruce even had to come up with its own 3-prong test in defining a “public figure” that does not comport with Sullivan.
For some time you have argued that the “actual malice” standard in Sullivan should be discarded. DJT would love that because it would give him the opportunity file endless SLAPP lawsuits against media outlets. All his lawsuits to try to silence the NY Times and Washington Post have failed under the “actual malice” standard. To discard that standard would invite DJT and others to try to silence criticism.
I hope Chris Stevens has the resources to appeal the erroneous decision by the SC Supreme Court because it is not “persuasive authority”!
A little more pickle relish is needed here:
High School and College Football Coaches are not Public Officials,
and 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬.
Exceptions can be made for Texas but a high school coach is still a high school coach. I agree with the South Carolina Supreme Court because this is carrying the idea of a public figure too far and basically opens them up to slander and libel with no defense whatsoever. The e-mail from the Trainer needed only to go to the former coach’s supervisors and school board. Sending it to virtually everyone associated with the school or athletic dept. was an obvious attempt to malign and discredit an individual.
I don’t like the coach’s coaching decisions but I would only yell about at the game. I would write nothing down in an e-mail or column in a paper or even a letter to the editor about a school coach. You allow things like this to go on without a defense then others will literally pile on and coach’s will become quite scarce, especially in high school.
College coach’s are a different matter. Wallace Butts at UGA was probably one of the highest paid public figures in the state just as Nick Saban, until he retired, was the highest paid public employee in the state of Alabama. Those are programs that manage and move millions of dollars and deserve scrutiny.
Wallace Butts was libeled. The whole bribery case was built on an overheard phone conversation due to a misconnection and was very weak about the truth. The decision that he was a public figure could have destroyed his reputation but he was able to prove malice because of the weakness of Saturday Evening Post story. Rightfully contributed to the death of the Saturday Evening Post.
I would say a high school basketball coach in Indiana faces as great or more scrutiny than a high school football coach in Texas.
Without addressing the specifics of the case – Times V Sullivan correctly made Defamation claims harder to make and required them to meet a high bar. Increasingly we are going the WRONG direction. We need to be further limiting the ability to use defamation as a means of punishing people.
John, sorry but I kind of disagree. Why should Joy Reid or Joy Bahar be able to say that Trump is going to kill gays? Why should Morning Joe say that Trump had 4 cops killed on J? That is a known falsity and therefore a “reckless disregard for the truth”.
Now I understand that major political figures can be attacked with such false vitriol, but the media is attacking lower and lower hanging fruit. Should Joe Scarborough be able to say that Barron Trump is a pedophile? Should Joy Reid be able to say that Melania Trump killed her mother?
We shouldn’t need to worry about such absurd examples, but the left (and to a lesser degree some on the right) has gone off the rails with their hyperbole and rediculous attacks. Someone like Joy Bahar or the other idiots on The View aren’t some high school coach making $30,000 a year, they have producers and staff prepping them every day and when they say that Trump will kill gays and reporters it is very bad for our country.
If we simply did away with football as it is…..and just went intramural flag style football…..could we as a society survive?
I suggest we could and should….yet still provide a valuable learning environment and reduce the physical injuries that result from full contact football.
Would that turn College Football back into a recreational endeavor…..and end the for profit football programs we see afield today…..absolutely.
Perhaps Colleges and Universities should once again return to being educational places for learning.
Breaking the chains that hold educational prosperity and ending the hold that sports, with all of its excess baggage like offering degrees to Players that cannot read remotely near grade level might have to come to an end.
Sometimes in Life one has to consider the need to punt in order to get back to a better place after failing to succeed with a prior plan or effort.
Sounds like the team the failed coach had to learn….as did the coach….and now does the plaintiff.
If we got the government out of education parents – the ones paying for the education could decide what should be part of that education.
“. . . reduce the physical injuries that result from full contact football.”
And if we just left training wheels on bicycles . . . And banned tree houses above ground level . . . And mandated that swimming pools be no deeper than one foot . . .
None of which have a high risk of TBIs.
“None of which have a high risk of TBIs.”
You’re joking, right?
Nope. AFAIK, none of those has a high risk of any kind of serious injury, only a small risk of serious injury.
I don’t think you understand that Dynamic very well there Ralph. First of all, successful football teams bring in way more money to the university than almost anything else. People are proud of their University but it has a good football team and they donate a lot of money that has nothing to do with sports. sure I’d like to see some reforms but I don’t want to see football disappear. it’s pretty obvious you never played football that’s okay. whoever it teaches you many valuable lessons it’s the greatest sport in the world in my opinion. you can’t protect your children from The Real World and the real world is violent. football is a great release for that. Football makes you tough and puts you into shape. I played college football, my father did, and my three sons did as well. There is not nearly as much of the excesses in college football in regards to Students being subpar academically as there once was.
American males have been pretty much emasculated that’s become very apparent. we need more football, boxing, hockey, and my second favorite sport rugby which I played for 20 years. Our military Recruiting has been destroyed by all this gay nonsense. As far as the universities are concerned I’m afraid it’s too late for them with a few exceptions they’re just left wing indoctrination camps.
Breaking the chains that hold educational prosperity and ending the hold that sports, with all of its excess baggage like offering degrees to Players that cannot read remotely near grade level might have to come to an end.
Ralph, money is not the issue.
Just look the 100’s of $billions held in endowments. If you want to fix the money in education the solution is easy. Universities must be the source of college loans. College loans must be dischargable by bankruptcy.
See how easy that is?
Echoing the above. In small town America, the HS FB coach is likely the best known person around. Rule applies to Ohio as well. Not a real fan of this decision – facts do not appear to match up.