Now It’s Up to the Supremes

As of yesterday my fate and the fate of California journalists was in the hands of the state Supreme Court in San Francisco. We filed our Answer to the LA Times’ Reply to our Petition for Review with the court along with 7 amicus curiae letters in my favor issued by First Amendment organizations including the National Coalition Against Censorship, the National Writers Union, Index on Censorship, Project Censored, the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and Cartoonists Rights Network International.

The Times argued in its Reply that truth is irrelevant because the First Amendment gives the Times the right to publish anything it wants regardless of veracity, and that its decision to fire a journalist is not actionable because it’s not firing but rather a simple “decision not to publish.”

If the court fails to rule in my favor or to hear my case, defamation law will be dead in California. And journalists will lose the right to contest wrongful termination.

Major media outlets are still refusing to cover my story. I suspect it’s because it’s awkward. The Times is wrong and they know it. But they don’t want to lose protections in case they screw up too.

Now we wait to hear whether the Court will agree to hear my case.

This entry was posted in Blog on by .

About Ted Rall

Ted Rall is the political cartoonist at ANewDomain.net, editor-in-chief of SkewedNews.net, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is the author of the biography "Trump," to be published in July 2016.

5 thoughts on “Now It’s Up to the Supremes

  1. May the wind be in your sails and rum be in your keg.

    It’s hard to believe that they would pass on this one, but then it’s hard to believe that the original judge allowed it to stand in the first place. I still think Ted ran over his dog.

  2. Good luck, Ted ! I can’t be sanguine that the California Supreme Court will reach a decision in your favour, which would be an utter repudiation of the consuetudinal use of the law to throttle, rather than encourage, freedom of expression when it doesn’t fit the agenda of our corporate masters, but I sincerely hope to be proved wrong….

    Henri

  3. I believe that what happens in such cases is that the judge explains that he (or she) will not be influenced by any financial involvements with the case before denying the motion and then finding for the corporation against the individual.
    All totally above board.
    But seriously Ted, I really hope you get a fair day in court on this. But even if you don’t, this is so obviously a screwjob, I have to wonder if anyone will actually want to work with Paul Pringle anymore.

  4. As previously noted, the LAT interprets the right of “freedom of the press” as, “the exclusive freedom of the owners of the presses.”

    This is essentially a theory of constitution & law for capitalists only. Or, more correctly, constitution and law for the benefit of capitalists only and to the detriment, only, if at all, of the employees of capitalists.

    It’s also another 14″ chef’s knife, to the hilt, into a vital organ of the apparent fantasy that the “search for truth” is an “American value.”

    It’s miserable, to be sure, but hardly of a surprise in the age of predatory capitalism and society inflicted with the notion of separation of reason and state.

    If the case is accepted for review, can you ask particular justices to recuse themselves based on campaign donations from the LAT and/or the LAPD and/or financial portfolios holding LAT stock?

    Best wishes.

Leave a Reply