Erika Kirk’s Right to Sue Her Defamers

Letter to Romans: Sick stories attacking Erika Kirk has some legal experts asking whether alleged defamers of such “public figures” who just happen to become famous should be judged more leniently than if their target were a “public official” who sought the limelight.

George Washington U Law Professor Jonathan Turley was one who wondered whether it is now “time for the Supreme Court to reconsider" those old and perhaps outdated precedents making up the “Public Figure Doctrine," which requires a plaintiff to show a heightened standard of “actual malice” for a defamation claim to be filed. In the Supremes’ landmark NY Times v Sullivan, it will be called that high standard was thought appropriate when applied to public officials since they had immediate access to the media & other resources to fight back with the truth. But, Turley notes, “the Court then [in subsequent case] extended that actual malice standard to public figures, arguing that they [like public officials] hold powerful position in our society and choose their lives of high visibility.”

Really? In the case of assassinated Charlie Kirk’s widow, the professor points out, she was cast into the spotlight by events. It’s suggested Mrs. Kirk has little personal power to fight back against the goofiest conspiracy theories & fake news regarding her, e.g., one obnoxious social media website tying her to Jeffrey Epstein’s call girl recruitment activities when she could only have been 16 years old herself. Opined Turley: “There is no reason for Erica Kirk to have to tolerate despicable attacks by sites looking for clickbait windfalls.” He cites at least two Justices who have expressed an interest in revisiting the New York Times precedent, Justice Clarence Thomas, “a longtime critic of the standard as unsupported in either the text or the history of the Constitution” and Justice Neil Gorsuch. Maybe now IS the time to get real?

Davd Soul