![handle is hein.journals/sfkunvlwrv2016 and id is 1 raw text is:
Criticizing Presidential Candidates: An Absolute Privilege
Sam Shirazi*
[I]t is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character
and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages. The importance to the state
and to society of such discussions is so vast and the advantages derived are so
great that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons
whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of
individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may
be great. The public benefit from publicity is so great and the chance of injury
to private character so small that such discussion must be privileged.'
I. INTRODUCTION
The words of Coleman v. MacLennan,2 penned over one hundred years ago,
ring as true today as they did when written. Of course, since Coleman was
decided, the way people and publications express themselves have changed in a
number of ways. For example, print media has largely been replaced by
electronic media. Many publications have online versions or publish
exclusively in electrionic form, and individuals can broadcast their opinions to
large segments of the population via a growing number of social media
platforms. Despite such changes, the proposition that individuals should be
able to freely express their thoughts on candidates for office remains a bedrock
principle of our democracy.
And yet, one of the most surprising things about the 2016 presidential
election is that the constitutional protections afforded to such expressions of
thought have come under attack by Republican presidential candidate Donald
Trump, who has threatened to sue those who publish defamatory comments
about him. Trump's behavior affords us an opportunity to reflect both on the
current state and the underlying purpose of the constitutional framework of
defamation law. His actions also warrant a reaffirmation of the principle that, in
order for our democracy to function, individuals and publications should feel
able to freely comment and discuss the qualifications and flaws of all
presidential candidates without fear of repercussions.
* J.D. 2015, University of Virginia School of Law; B.A. 2010, University of Virginia College of Arts and
Sciences. The views expressed herein are mine alone, and are not necessarily those of my employer. I would
like to thank University of Virginia School of Law professors Leslie Kendrick and George E. White for their
previous teachings on this topic.
1. Coleman v. MacLennan, 98 P. 281, 286 (Kan. 1908).
2. 98 P. 281, 286 (Kan. 1908).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/sfkunvlwrv2016&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most