 |
|
|
|||||
President Donald Trump is again attacking the American pressthis time not with fiery rally speeches or by calling the media the enemy of the people, but through the courts. Since the heat of the November 2024 election, and continuing into July, Trump has filed defamation lawsuits against 60 Minutes broadcaster CBS News and The Wall Street Journal. He has also sued The Des Moines Register for publishing a poll just before the 2024 election that Trump alleges exaggerated support for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and thus constituted election interference and fraud. These are in addition to other lawsuits Trump filed against the news media during his first term and during his years out of office between 2021 and 2025. At the heart of Trumps complaints is a familiar refrain: The media is not only biased, but dishonest, corrupt, and dangerous. The president isnt just upset about reporting on him that he thinks is unfair. He wants to redefine what counts as libel and make it easier for public officials to sue for damages. A libel suit is a civil tort claim seeking damages when a person believes something false has been printed or broadcast about them and so harmed their reputation. Redefining libel in this way would require overturning the Supreme Courts 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, one of the most important First Amendment legal rulings in American constitutional history Trump made overturning Sullivan a talking point during his first campaign for president; his lawsuits now put that threat into action. And they raise the question: What happened in Sullivan, and why does it still matter? What Sullivan was about As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression. In 1960, The New York Times published a full-page advertisement titled Heed Their Rising Voices. The ad, which included an appeal for readers to send money in support of Martin Luther King Jr. and the movement against Jim Crow, described brutal and unjust treatment of Black students and protesters in Montgomery, Alabama. It also emphasized episodes of police violence against peaceful demonstrations. The ad was not entirely accurate in its description of the behavior of either protesters or the police. It claimed, for instance, that activists had sung My Country Tis of Thee on the steps of the state capitol during a rally, when they actually had sung the national anthem. It said that truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas had ringed a college campus, when the police had only been deployed nearby. And it asserted that King had been arrested seven times in Alabama, when the real number was four. Though the ad did not identify any individual public officials by name, it disparaged the behavior of Montgomery police. Thats where L.B. Sullivan came in. As Montgomerys police commissioner, he oversaw the police department. Sullivan claimed that because the ad maligned the conduct of law enforcement, it had implicitly defamed him. In 1960 in Alabama, a primary defense against libel was truth. But since there were mistakes in the ad, a truth defense could not be raised. Sullivan sued for damages, and an Alabama jury awarded him $500,000, equivalent to $5,450,000 in 2025. The message to the press was clear: criticize Southern officials and risk being sued out of existence. In fact, the Sullivan lawsuit was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader strategy. In addition to Sullivan, four other Montgomery officials filed suits against The Times. In Birmingham, public officials filed seven libel lawsuits over Times reporter Harrison Salisburys trenchant reporting about racism in that city. The lawsuits helped push The Times to the edge of bankruptcy. Salisbury was even indicted for seditious libel and faced up to 21 years in prison. Alabama officials also sued CBS, The Associated Press, The Saturday Evening Post, and Ladies Home Journalall for reporting on civil rights and the Souths brutal response. The Supreme Court decision The jurys verdict in favor of Sullivan was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 1964. Writing for the court, Justice William Brennan held that public officials cannot prevail in defamation lawsuits merely by showing that statements are false. Instead, they must prove such statements are made with actual malice. Actual malice means a reporter or press outlet knew their story was false or else acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The decision set a high bar. Before the ruling, the First Amendments protections for speech and the press didnt offer much help to the press in libel cases. After it, public officials who wanted to sue the press would have to prove actual malicereal, purposeful untruths that caused harm. Honest mistakes werent enough to prevail in such lawsuits. The court held that errors are inevitable in public debate and that protecting those mistakes is essential to keeping debate open and free. Nonviolent protest and the press In essence, the court ruling blocked government officials fromsuing for libel with ulterior motives. King and other civil rights leaders relied on a strategy of nonviolent protest to expose injustice through public, visible actions. When protesters were arrested, beaten, or hosed in the streets, their goal was not chaosit was clarity. They wanted the nation to see what Southern oppression looked like. For that, they needed press coverage. The Supreme Court recognized this danger. Public officials treated differently Another key element of the courts reasoning was its distinction between public officials and private citizens. Elected leaders, the court said, can use mass media to defend themselves in ways ordinary people cannot. The public official certainly has equal if not greater access than most private citizens to media of communication, Justice Brennan wrote in the Sullivan ruling. Trump is a perfect example of this dynamic. He masterfully uses social media, rallies, televised interviews, and impromptu remarks to push back. He doesnt need the courts. Giving public officials the power to sue over news stories they dislike could well create a chilling effect on the media that undermines government accountability and distorts public discourse. The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise, Brennan wrote. In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized. Why Sullivan still matters The Sullivan ruling is more than a legal doctrine. It is a shared agreement about the kind of democracy Americans aspire to. It affirms a press duty to hold power to account, and a public right to hear facts and information that those in power want to suppress. The ruling protects the right to criticize those in power and affirms that the press is not a nuisance, but an essential part of a functioning democracy. It ensures that political leaders cannot insulate themselves from scrutiny by silencing their critics through intimidation or litigation. Trumps lawsuits seek to undo these press protections. He presents himself as the victim of a dishonest press and hopes to use the legal system to punish those he perceives to be his detractors. The decision in the Sullivan case reminds Americans that democracy doesnt depend on leaders who feel comfortable. It depends on a public that is free to speak. Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin is the Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
As the Trump administration ramps up mass deportations, impacting businesses across numerous sectors, the American Business Immigration Coalition (ABIC) is advocating for policy reform. Rebecca Shi leads the organization that’s made up of 1,400 current and former CEOs, trade group leaders, and others who rely heavily on an immigrant workforce. She shares how uncertainty over immigration has disrupted daily business and affected the bottom line, while also expressing optimism that this moment could lead to some long-needed changes in U.S. immigration policy. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Bob Safian, the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. This country’s relationship with immigration is so complicated because, of course, we all came here as immigrants at different times in different ways, and it’s been a great advantage to the businesses and the economy of the U.S. to have sort of fresh, young talent be part of it. And yet there’s also this anxiety, this fear that new people are going to take away what we have. How do you square thatthose two different sides of this? If you look at history, the last time that our immigration levels pushed 15% to 19% was in the 1910s. And around that time, also, there was huge backlash, and the economy wasn’t doing well. And so then the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. And for nearly 50, 60 years, up until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, there was almost zero immigration. So that number of foreign-born [residents] was reduced to about 3% to 4%. And we kind of experienced the same thing these last few years when, for the first time, our foreign-born population pushed up to 18% to 19%. And we are experiencing a similar backlash. But again, we are in the economy of 2025 and no longer in 1965. So we really should have a different response. We saw the jobs report last week, and the job growth in July is 74,000. And nearly all economists say that we need at least 100,000 jobs created in order just to keep this economy moving. And the main reason is because we’re short about a million workers over the last four monthspeople who have either been detained or deported, or people who fear being sent to a different country and have self-deported. And so it is something that we’re going to have to deal with head-on, but I think we’re encouraged by what the president has said recently, and he’s a businessman. He knows what the workforce requires, and to your point, the hunger of immigrants and those foreign-born is necessary for any company or any economy to be fully competitive. In all the news about immigration raids, we don’t hear very much about employers facing consequences for hiring people without proper documentation. Why is that? Might that change with more onus being put on businesses? I think you’re starting to see that change. So there was that large raid at a meat processing plant in Nebraska, and that meat processor actually was E-Verify compliant. He did E-Verify, and ICE came and detained and removed about 90 workers. And his response, and he is right, is that this E-Verify system is a really flawed system. Sometimes it will mistake people’s names, catch people who are U.S citizens, or just completely misidentify people. It’s important to recognize that one of the key reasonsdrivers of why immigrants are in this countryis because somebody gave them a job. And so it is one of the reasons why our coalition and our employers have really taken upon themselves to really push for a solution so that they can come out of the shadows and work legally. And that’s actually good and protects every American worker when we don’t have a second-class system. When we don’t have an easily exploitable group of people because they’re in the shadows and living in fear, you ensure that their rights and wages are protected, not just for them, but for every American worker as well. I mean ABIC came together looking for a lasting long-term reform to immigration policy. And I wonder, is that possible in an environment that’s so charged? And I know you’re optimistic about it, but why is this all so hard? I think it’s hard because it’s easy to play up the fears and it’s easy to blame, to point fingers. But I think at the same time, the majority of Americans do believe in steps forward and especially for people who have been here and have earned that legal statusthat the everyday American is a lot smarter than the professional politicians, that they don’t need all or nothing. Something like a legal work permit, like the president has said, is something that’s broadly supported. And then I think the other piece is just that politicians, for some of them, have to run every two years. And so it’s very easy to run and add, calling something amnesty even when it isn’t to try to score cheap political points. So what’s at stake from here for businesses? For all of us? A lot of research has been done about this enforcement-only approach, this removal, say up to a million people a year, and what it can cost the economy. It’s ahead of $350 billion. It’s about up to 3 1/2 percentage in terms of job and GDP. It can also translate to up to 2.5 million job losses for American workers. The work that immigrants do, and Americans do, tends to be complementary. Immigrants are, say, milking a dairy cow while American workers are the foremen or the managers of the farm. In a restaurant, the immigrants are the busboys or they’re washing the dishes, and Americans prefer roles at the front of the house in terms of waitressing or hosting or bartending. And so then when you remove that back of the house where there isn’t sufficient labor in the back of the house, that impacts the work of everyday Americans. And then the other thing is just inflationary and food prices. We had a dairy farmer in Wisconsin who talked to his neighbors about how, if they continue down this road, are they willing to pay $30 for a gallon of milk? Or even worse, are we okay with milk not being domestically produced and having to be imported? So I think that those are some of the consequences that we might face. The pendulum on things like immigration tends to swing from one end to the other. And certainly during the Biden administration, maybe the doors were open too much, and maybe the doors are closed too much now. Where do you feel like the pendulum is right now? I think it’s swung the other way. And I think Americans, like the latest Gallup poll shows, welcome immigrants and find immigration more favorable, at 79%. Which is the highest since the pandemic, since we called immigrant workers essential because, when the rest of us could quarantine safely, they were still working and picking crops. So yeah, I think the American attitude is definitely a reaction to the current more-restrictive policies. And I think that bdes well, too, for solutions that give some cover and support for particularly Republicans and the administration to move forward, especially if they want to keep power in 2026. And so you’re not relying on the Democrats retaking power to be able to get these changes through. Well, in the last 20-some years I’ve been at this, Democrats have had full control of both chambers and the White House three times, and nothing was done. And same with Republicans, right? Also, Republicans have had their chance to get something done, and we haven’t, and we see this president having just incredible influence over the Congress. And so I think employers will keep pushing.
Category:
E-Commerce
Bree Groff is a company culture, engagement, and leadership consultant, and serves as a senior adviser to the global consultancy SYPartners. She has guided executives at companies including Calvin Klein, Google, Hilton, Microsoft, and NBCUniversal. Whats the big idea? Bree remembers sitting in the waiting room at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center with her mom, hoping desperately that her moms oncologist could give her every last day possibleand then talking to a friend from work, telling her she couldnt wait for the week to be over. The different attitudes toward the value of our days were striking. It became very clear: when we wish away the workweek, we wish away our lives. What would it take for us to look forward to Monday? Below, Bree shares five key insights from her new book, Today Was Fun: A Book About Work (Seriously). Listen to the audio versionread by Bree herselfbelow, or in the Next Big Idea App. [Photo: Next Big Idea Club] 1. Most work, most days, should be fun. So much about the working world is patently ridiculous. Its not normal to be too busy to eat. Its not normal to look at email before you look at the partner lying beside you every morning. Its not normal to choose being high performing over happy. And its definitely not normal to enjoy 2/7ths of our lives each week. So no, I dont believe work needs to be drudgery. I also dont believe it needs to be our religion or identity or the sum of our fulfillment. That end of the spectrum, while sometimes invigorating, is an easy recipe for burnout. Work can, instead, simply be fun! A nice way to spend our time on the planet. Because work, at its simplest, is fundamentally enjoyable! We dont get paid because work is painful. We get paid because we create value. The pain is entirely optional. Its fun to create something others appreciate. To show off our skills, learn, experiment, and build next to people we like. Sure, not every day will be fun, but when we falsely equate struggle with greatness, weve guaranteed were either happy or successful but never both. Consider Kati Kariko, the famed mRNA researcher whose work led to the development of the COVID-19 vaccines. As she would dash off to the lab, her husband would tell her, You are not going to workyou are going to have fun. Or take Milton Glaser, the renowned designer of I <3 NY fame, who, when asked why he kept working at age 87, replied, I do it because its so pleasurable for me. I derive this deep, deep satisfaction that nothing else, including sex, has ever given me. Thats a strong endorsement for fun at work. 2. Your brain works whether youre wearing a suit or stretchy pants. We need to lose the notion that we must be super profesh. Somewhere along the way, we decided to equate being professional with being well-dressed and well-groomed, rather than doing high-quality work, on time, with respect. Weve confused being professional with looking professional. Work is, in many ways, performative. No one really knows what theyre doing, and yet our ability to get things done rests on other people believing that we do. So, weve created symbols of professionalism that we use to telegraph our competency. We wear tailored suits to look like what society tells us businesspeople look like. Or we use buzzwords and jargon to obscure our lack of clear thinking. Its silly. Can we all decide that the new professionalism means being respectful and doing good work, whether or not were wearing a zipper? Weve confused being professional with looking professional. Also, its really no fun. Who wants to be (literally) buttoned up and proper all day long? Why should work be a costume party? When we get dressed for work in the morning, the last thing most people want to put on is a business mask: that way of being that allows us to be seen as palatable, presentable, and acceptable within the dominant business culture. An employee I interviewed at one client said, The feedback was focused on delivery, not content. Weve gotten better but have work to do around embracing people, their styles. And another said, There shouldnt be one template of what a successful leader is. You might think, Sure, some tech startup or creative agency can be casual and spunky and fun, but serious business demands proper professionalism. But consider perhaps the most serious of all workplaces: the operating room. Dr. Peter Attia, author of Outlive and former Johns Hopkins surgeon, recounts, Surgeons are often listening to music in the OR, but we only listened to that CD [of Napoleon Dynamite clips]. For an entire month we never stopped laughing at this thing. People always ask when I tell this story, Did it compromise the outcomes? And I will say that there was a period of three days when we did 13 kidney transplants: every one of those patients had a remarkable achievement outcome. If surgeons are having fun while peoples lives are on the line, you can have fun in your next budget meeting. 3. Shoveling shit is fun if you like your co-shovelers. Loads of research shows that friendship at work drives business outcomes. Im far more interested in the argument that friendship at work drives Im enjoying my life outcomes. Because what good is a strong bottom line if everyones miserable? If we know relationships are the secret to long-term human happiness, why do we pretend its different at work? You should like the people you spend your days with. Plain and simple. What good is a strong bottom line if everyones miserable? In the show The Office, the imaginary organization Dunder Mifflin is a paper sales companya brilliant choice for its extreme dullness. The point of the show was not to showcase purpose at work, or passion, or that work sucks. It was to show that, even without purpose and passion, work doesnt suck because of the people. The office workers at Dunder Mifflin all kind of hated each other (except for a few notable romances), but they made their own fun, nonetheless. From the dullest of scenesHR presentations and fire safety protoolscame all kinds of hilarity. Im very aware that some of the jokes didnt age well. But I think the sentiment remains: Work is fun if we, together, make it that way. 4. Make brilliant workdont let busyness and conformity sabotage you. We should do brilliant work because it drives business. Because it creates value. But even cooler than either of those reasons is that doing brilliant work makes us feel alive! Its a cool part of being a human that we get to play around on the planet and try to make stuff that makes others happy. Were all just big kids shouting, Hey, watch this! Look what I can do! Its simply fun. And yet, two things get in the way: busyness and conformity. Busyness can be a strategy problem. You arent prioritizing what drives your business and are making yourself busy with too many side quests. It can be a power problemthat managers need to constantly coordinate and are therefore making workers attend 17 status meetings a week. Or it can be a psychology problem: It feels good to be busy because busy means Im in demand, Im needed. It can also be an escape from the rest of life. Brilliance requires spaciousness. Busyness is fight or flight, while brilliance is sitting in the meadow, dreaming about your innovative new shelter. What does it take for us to simply sit and think once in a while? Busyness is fight or flight, while brilliance is sitting in the meadow, dreaming about your innovative new shelter. Conformity is equally dominating and alluring. Making our work look like everyone elses work is a form of safety. Its Im just doing it how weve always done it. Dont blame me! But what happens when we honor our own instincts first and lead with creative confidence? Take the acclaimed and non-conforming screenwriter Stanley Kubrick. Someone once asked him if it was usual for a director to spend so much time lighting each shot. He said, I dont know. Ive never seen anyone else light a film. He trusted in himself. You may not want a whole organization filled with Stanley Kubricks who are definitely not getting their expense reports done on time. But truly anyoneanyone!can learn to be brilliant in at least some aspect of their work: whether theyre a barista making latte art, an HR manager creating trainings, or a CEO setting a strategy, there is always some opportunity for human expression. And thats the fun stuff. 5. Get good at life, not just work. The trouble with work is that it can be greedy. Sometimes you may work too much because thats what the job requires. Other times it might be because you find it fun and even addicting. But either way, theres a cost, and it cant be avoided. When you overwork, you underlive. And thats no fun. Our time is finite, and if more is spent working, less is spent on date nights, crossword puzzles, your health, or many other parts of your life that are important to you. Under no circumstances should you take your laptop on your date night in a quest to have it all. You are more important than you think to those who love you. You are less important than you think to those who employ you. Even leaders of nations are replaceable! But it can be hard to keep overworking tamped down if we dont see how much there is to gain. We were at the beach one day when my husband, Brad, said to a friend of ours, It was so nice to have a day to do nothing. Our friend responded, Nothing?! When was the last time you had lobster for lunch and swam so vigorously in the sea? You did everything! Of course, Brad was referring to having done no workthe measure of how productive we are for business or society. When I think of a day I did everything, I used to think of a day when I ran around hyper-efficiently getting things done. But thats not the kind of everything-life I want now. I want the kind of everything-life where I have time to sing the ridiculous wake-up song to my daughter in the morning. Where I belly laugh with colleagues instead of getting right down to business. Maybe some everything-days are grand and filled with lobster and the sea, while some are small and sweet and filled with time to read and walk and cook with my family and totally mess up the recipe, but it doesnt really matter. I want that kind of everything-life. Perhaps you do too? The kind of life where I curl up at night and think: Today was fun. This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||