Sullivan absolutely establishes corporate rights. Otherwise, Trump could enact a ban on “fake news” and say it applies only to the corporation itself, not the staff. The staff can write whatever they want, but the corporation can’t use its printing presses, etc., to disseminate what the government considers fake news.

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Otherwise, Trump could enact a ban on “fake news” and say it applies only to the corporation itself, not the staff.

That's some really tortured logic.

Such an act would simply be a violation of the First Amendment (and Article I, for that matter). The corporate nature of its target is, again, entirely irrelevant.

Sullivan sets a high standard for defamation claims by public figures. That's it. They protect you saying defamatory things about Hillary Clinton as long as you don't write down "I know this is false and I'm defaming her because I hate her guts" explicitly somewhere.

▲

rayiner 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> The corporate nature of its target is, again, entirely irrelevant.

Why? In New York Times v. Sullivan, the corporation was being sued for what it did. The New York Times reporter didn’t print and distribute all those newspapers. The corporation did that.

And what you’re calling “tortured logic” was in fact the government’s argument in Citizens United. It argued that it wasn’t regulating the filmmaker. It was regulating the corporation spending funds to make and distribute the film. So it sounds like we agree Citizens United was correctly decided!

	▲	ceejayoz 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> In New York Times v. Sullivan, the corporation was being sued for what it did. And its status as a corporation was irrelevant to the result. If it was @ceejayoz v. Sullivan, the ruling would've been the same. > So it sounds like we agree Citizens United was correctly decided! There's that torturing again. I believe CU illegitimately impacts the voting rights of American citizens.