New York Times - Sullivan Davası: Revizyonlar arasındaki fark

[kontrol edilmiş revizyon][kontrol edilmiş revizyon]
İçerik silindi İçerik eklendi
Magawla61 (mesaj | katkılar)
Magawla61 (mesaj | katkılar)
35. satır:
The ''Times'' did subsequently publish a retraction of the advertisement upon the demand of Governor [[John Malcolm Patterson|John Patterson]] of Alabama, who alleged the publication charged him with "grave misconduct and ... improper actions and omissions as Governor of Alabama and ''[[ex officio]]'' chairman of the State Board of Education of Alabama."<ref name=nytvss/> When asked to explain why there had been a retraction for the Governor but not for Sullivan, the Secretary of the ''Times'' testified: "We did that because we didn't want anything that was published by the ''Times'' to be a reflection on the State of Alabama and the Governor was, as far as we could see, the embodiment of the State of Alabama and the proper representative of the state and, furthermore, we had by that time learned more of the actual facts which the ad purported to recite and, finally, the ad did refer to the action of the state authorities and the Board of Education presumably of which the Governor is the ''ex officio'' chairman....". However, the Secretary also testified he did not think that "any of the language in there referred to Mr. Sullivan."<ref name=nytvss/>
 
==TheÜst court'smahkemenin decisionkararı==
TheÜst Courtmahkemeye ruledgiden fordava ''Theoybirliğiyle (9-0) New York Times'', 9–0lehine sonuçlandı.<ref name="oyez.org"/> TheÜst rule of law applied by themahkeme; Alabama courtsmahkemesinin waskararının foundAmerika constitutionallyBirleşik deficientDevletleri forAnayasası'nın failurebirinci tove provideon safeguardsdördüncü for freedom of speech and of the press, as required by themaddeleriyle [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First]] and, [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]. Thegüvenceye decisionalınan furtherkonuşma heldve thatbasın evenhürriyetine withaykırı theolduğu properkararına safeguards,vardı. theÜst evidencemahkeme presentedbundan inbaşka, thisdavanın caseL. wasB. insufficientSullivan'ın tolehine supportsonuçlanmasına ayetecek judgmentkadar fordelil Sullivanolmadığına da hükmetti.
 
===Gerçek kötü niyet ([[Actual malice]])===
Üst mahkeme, bir kamu görevlisinin bir hakaret davasını kazanabilmesi için sözkonusu eylemin "gerçek kötü niyet"le yapıldığının ispat etmesi gerektiği sonucuna hükmetti. "Kötü niyet" kavramı ise; anlaşılmaz ve soyut bir kavram olduğu için ispat edilmesi oldukça zordur.
The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with ''[[actual malice]].'' In this context, the phrase refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation, rather than its ordinary meaning of malicious intent. In his concurring opinion, [[Hugo Black|Justice Black]] explained that "'[m]alice,' even as defined by the Court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment."
 
Bahsedilmesi gereken diğer bir dava yine New York Times ile Alabama eyaletinin bir şehrinde resmi görevli L.B. Sullivan isimli kişi arasındadır. Oldukça ilginç olan bu davada gazetenin suçlanan bazı sivil haklar liderlerinin imzasını taşıyan, bir takım yanlış bilgilerin de yer aldığı reklamları yayınlamasının ardında polis departmanında çalışan Sullivan, dolaylı olarak kendisine bir karalamada bulunulduğuna dayanarak dava açmıştır. Alabama’daki mahkemede 500 000 dolar tazminata hükmedilmesine rağmen federal mahkeme kararı bozmuştur, çünkü mahkemeye göre basında her yazan kullanışlı ya da doğru olmak zorunda değildir. Burada önemli olan fiili kasıttır ve o da burada mevcut değildir.
Dış ilişkilerde adaletten ziyade çıkar ilişkilerini hesaba katmasına rağmen mahkemenin emsal niteliğindeki bu davalardaki tavrı Amerika’nın oldukça özgürlükçü bir yapıya sahip olduğu izlenimi vermektedir, öyledir de. Mahkeme kararları da hem doktrinde hem de halk nezdinde tartışılabilmektedir.
 
The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with ''[[actual malice]].'' In this context, the phrase refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation, rather than its ordinary meaning of malicious intent. In his concurring opinion, [[Hugo Black|Justice Black]] explained that "'[m]alice,' even as defined by the Court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment."
 
The term "malice" was not newly invented for the case; it came from existing libel law. In many jurisdictions, including Alabama (where the case arose), proof of "actual malice" (actual knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard for the truth) was required in order for [[punitive damages]] to be awarded, or for other increased penalties. Since a writer's malicious intent is hard to prove, proof that the writer knowingly published a falsehood was generally accepted as proof of malice, under the assumption that only a person with ill intent would knowingly publish something false. In ''[[Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Printing Co.]]'', 254 N.Y. 95 (1930), similarly, the court said: "The plaintiff alleges that this criticism of him and of his work was not fair and was not honest; it was published with actual malice, ill will and spite. If he establishes this allegation, he has made out a cause of action. No comment or criticism, otherwise libelous, is fair or just comment on a matter of public interest if it be made through actual ill will and malice." (p.&nbsp;106)