2026-06-29T09:44:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
撰稿
更新时间:2026年6月29日 / 美国东部时间上午11:20 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯—— 美国最高法院周一拒绝受理前哈佛法学院教授艾伦·德肖维茨的诉讼。德肖维茨指控CNN在报道特朗普总统2020年弹劾审判期间的言论时对其进行了诽谤。
这起争议曾给最高法院提供了重新审议其1964年具有里程碑意义的《纽约时报》诉沙利文案判决的机会,该案为公众人物起诉媒体公司诽谤设定了高标准。根据该案判决,声称遭到诽谤的公职人员必须证明被告在发表声明时明知其为虚假,或对其虚假性持漠视态度,这一标准被称为“实际恶意”。
克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官和尼尔·戈萨奇大法官曾批评这项数十年前的判决,但最高法院其他成员均未表现出重新审议该案的意愿。托马斯和戈萨奇对最高法院拒绝受理此案的决定持不同意见。
在驳回德肖维茨的上诉后,最高法院维持了下级法院作出的有利于CNN的判决。
德肖维茨的诉讼
在这张2019年3月6日的资料照片中,律师艾伦·德肖维茨离开纽约曼哈顿联邦法院。美联社照片/弗兰克·富兰克林二世,资料图
德肖维茨对CNN的诉讼可追溯至特朗普的首次弹劾审判,当时的指控包括特朗普滥用职权、阻挠国会调查。相关程序涉及据称特朗普在首届任期内扣留对乌克兰军事援助,以施压乌政府调查对其政治有利的内容。
德肖维茨曾作为总统法律团队成员参与参议院弹劾审判,并在参议院议事厅发表了关于弹劾宪法标准的言论。针对他的言论,CNN发布了一篇在线评论批评德肖维茨的论点,该电视台其他嘉宾也谴责了他的表述。
在舆论反弹期间,德肖维茨两次做客CNN解释并为自己的论点辩护,该电视台也完整播出了他的发言。
尽管如此,德肖维茨仍对CNN提起了3亿美元的诽谤诉讼,指控该电视台故意遗漏其言论的关键部分,并策划了“以牺牲他为代价欺骗观众的蓄意阴谋”。
佛罗里达州联邦地区法院于2023年作出有利于CNN的判决,认定德肖维茨无法证明CNN存在实际恶意。美国第十一巡回上诉法院去年维持了该判决。
法院表示,CNN提供了“无可辩驳的证据”,证明其评论员认为针对德肖维茨的言论“公平且准确”,而德肖维茨“未提供任何证据证明CNN的评论员或制作人员存在实际恶意”。
德肖维茨随后向最高法院提起上诉,在提交的文件中辩称,自《纽约时报》诉沙利文案判决以来的60年间,该判决所提供的保护已让媒体几乎“不受追责”。
他表示,这一先例“已演变成一座坚不可摧的堡垒,保护媒体的不负责任行为,同时剥夺公众人物针对恶劣虚假陈述寻求救济的权利”。
CNN的律师敦促最高法院驳回德肖维茨的上诉。他们告诉大法官们,德肖维茨的诉讼针对的是受保护的观点,至少是评论员对其论点的解读。
他们还警告称,《纽约时报》诉沙利文案是“现代宪法法律的基石”,推翻该案将造成永久性损害。
CNN的律师在文件中写道:“实际恶意标准是现代第一修正案判例法的支柱,既保障了民主社会中自决所需的言论自由,又确保了公职人员和公众人物原告能够获得有效的救济途径。”
Supreme Court turns away Alan Dershowitz’s defamation case against CNN
2026-06-29T09:44:00-0400 / CBS News
By
Updated on: June 29, 2026 / 11:20 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz’s case alleging CNN defamed him with its coverage of remarks made during President Trump’s 2020 impeachment trial.
The dispute presented the high court with the chance to revisit its landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which set a high bar for public figures to win defamation lawsuits against media companies. That case requires a public official claiming defamation to prove the defendant knew their statement was false at the time or demonstrated reckless disregard of its falsity, a standard known as actual malice.
Two of the justices, Justice Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have criticized that decades-old decision, but no other member of the high court has shown an appetite to reconsider it. Thomas and Gorsuch dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case.
In rejecting Dershowitz’s appeal, the Supreme Court left untouched a lower court decision in favor of CNN.
Dershowitz’s lawsuit
In this March 6, 2019, file photo, attorney Alan Dershowitz leaves Manhattan Federal Court in New York. AP Photo/Frank Franklin II, File
Dershowitz’s suit against CNN dates back to Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial, which involved claims Mr. Trump abused his power and obstructed a congressional investigation. The proceedings involved the president’s alleged efforts during his first term to withhold military funds to Ukraine to pressure its government to pursue investigations that would benefit him politically.
Dershowitz served as a member of the president’s legal team during the Senate trial, and made remarks about the constitutional standards for impeachment on the Senate floor. In response to his comments, CNN published an online commentary criticizing Dershowitz’s argument, and others appearing on the network also condemned his statements.
Amid the backlash, Dershowitz appeared on CNN twice to explain and defend his argument, and the network aired his remarks in full.
Still, Dershowitz filed a $300 million defamation lawsuit against CNN, alleging that the network intentionally omitted a key portion of his remarks and engaged in “a deliberate scheme to defraud its own audience” at his expense.
A federal district court in Florida ruled in favor of CNN in 2023, finding that Dershowitz could not show that CNN had acted with actual malice. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed that ruling last year.
CNN, the court said, offered “unrefuted evidence” that its commentators believed their statements about Dershowitz were “fair and accurate,” while Dershowitz “provided no evidence that CNN’s commentators or producers acted with actual malice.”
Dershowitz appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing in a filing that in the six decades since New York Times v. Sullivan was decided, its protections have left the media nearly “untouchable.”
The precedent, he said, “has morphed into an impregnable fortress that protects media irresponsibility while denying public figures any remedy for egregious misrepresentations.”
Lawyers for CNN urged the Supreme Court to reject Dershowitz’s appeal. They told the justices that Dershowitz’s lawsuit targeted protected opinions or at least commentators’ interpretations of his arguments.
They also warned that New York Times v. Sullivan is a “cornerstone of modern constitutional law,” and overruling it would do lasting damage.
“The actual-malice standard is a pillar of modern First Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards the free speech necessary for self-determination in a democratic society while still ensuring effective recourse for public-official and public-figure plaintiffs,” CNN’s lawyers wrote.
发表回复