> He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.
How come they could publish this without getting sued into oblivion?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's not always followed but it does remain fairly important in the mind of American citizens
What would stop the Atlantic from "getting sued into oblivion" is that the person that the article was about (Nixon) was dead when it was written, and the dead can't be defamed.
It doesn’t prevent them from suing,
It does, within its scope, prevent the US or (because the same rule is incorporated against the states under the 14th) any state government from giving them a legal basis for winning a suit, though, which the target of a suit is free to point out to the court to get the case dismissed. This is why the scope if defamation is much narrower in the US then in the British law it inherited.
And, in some US jurisdictions, the target mught also be able to recover damages from the filer of the original suit under anti-SLAPP. laws.
The bar is especially high for defamation of public figures like Nixon. For something to be defamation against a public figure, it not only has to be provably false; it has to be intentionally and maliciously false. They would have to prove that the author intentionally was spreading false information to hurt the subject. That is so difficult to do that defamation suits regarding public figures are almost never successful.
It doesn’t matter if “well it’s not technically illegal because it’s not the government”, people don’t like censorship either way.
If your only defense of [corp/group] is that “well technically their suppression isn’t against the law” you’re probably on the wrong side.
How would lawsuits work without the government being involved?
Not only is truth an absolute defense to defamation in the US, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's statements were made with actual malice if the plaintiff is a public official. Merely being unsure if something is true or being negligent in determining the truth of it is not sufficient.
Furthermore, nearly all civil lawsuits require that actual damages be done in order to have standing at all. That is, you need a dollar amount because that's basically the only remedy that a civil court can make. That means that if the damage is due to lost reputation and your reputation has already been thoroughly soiled, it will be incredibly difficult to put a dollar amount to it.
So:
1. It has to be actually false as shown by the plaintiff
2. It has to be known by the defendant to be false as shown by the plaintiff
3. It has to be made intentionally to harm the subject as shown by the plaintiff
4. The statements must have actually harmed the subject in monetary terms as shown by the plaintiff
It is agonizing to watch.
Is there anything or anyone Americans can't sue?
I say this as a big fan of his work; but it is not to be taken seriously.