Attorney General Douglas Moylan takes umbrage with a recently published opinion article by fellow attorney Peter Santos that is highly critical of Mr. Moylan. The AG has asked Kandit to remove the opinion piece in its entirety; however, we have a high threshold for censorship. The bulk of the reason behind that policy is to encourage fluid – though hopefully, responsible – free speech. But there is another reason we allow commenters and opinion submissions to make their unchecked claims against elected officials: Kandit does not have the luxury of an editorial team to fact check every single person’s assertions.
Contributing opinion writers to Kandit include Mabel Doge Luhan of Saipan, Lee Webber, John Ananich, and now the recent submission by Mr. Santos. These four citizens of the Marianas have varied opinions and use sources ranging from scholarly research to the claims made in the local paper.
Mr. Moylan isn’t a typical politician. He never runs from reporters, and almost always answers questions directly and candidly. So, when he reacted to Mr. Santos’ opinion piece against him with claims of falsehoods and defamation, we knew we could neither ignore his protests nor expect him – if we were to be interested in such a story – to fact check Mr. Santos’ opinion. That’s our job, if we’re so inclined.
Neither will we suppress Mr. Santos’ or anyone else’s political criticisms against elected officials. So we’ll go a step further. We’ll take the time to fact check Mr. Santos’ opinion piece, “Some senators complicit in the corruption and shortcomings of the AG.” We will publish our report once the facts check are complete.
There is one portion of Mr. Santos’ opinion article that I am able to at least partially fact check now. Mr. Santos stated, “Doug Moylan has also hired his brother at a salary of $120,000 for a non-existent position at the AG’s Office. He also hired his fiancee, a realtor with no experience in a legal setting, and pays her $75,000.”
Setting aside the salary amounts or the assertion of a “non-existent position” being created – claims that I need to fact check – Mr. Moylan did provide me with two separate documents – dated and stamped months apart – that do show the erection of a Chinese firewall within his office that preceded and were regarding the hiring of his brother and his fiancee. Therefore, we are able to verify through written and dated correspondence that Mr. Moylan – by directive – removed himself from the hiring process involving family members.
“I understand your story as to myself, as I am a public figure which is legally arguable on whether this former losing AG candidate can publish false statements as to me,” Mr. Moylan said. “However, that same legal standard does not apply to anyone else in the AGs Office. He has made clearly defamatory statements against other private persons in his article that are not public figures.”
Mr. Santos made many claims, so this may take a couple days, and this surely pushes back other stories we intended to get to this week. But, the discourse is worth it. It is valuable and serves public purpose.
In the meantime, here are some entries from reputable sources regarding political free speech and its border with defamation:
Mr. Justice (William J.) Brennan, Jr. in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964):
“We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State’s power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct. …
“We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State’s power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct. …
“The effect would be to shackle the First Amendment in its attempt to secure ‘the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.’ Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, 326 U. S. 20. …
“The question before us is whether this rule of liability, as applied to an action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct, abridges the freedom of speech and of the press that is guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. …
“The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, ‘was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.’ Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 354 U. S. 484. ‘The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.’ Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 283 U. S. 369. ‘[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions,’ Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 314 U. S. 270, and this opportunity is to be afforded for ‘vigorous advocacy’ no less than ‘abstract discussion.’ NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 371 U. S. 429. …
“Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 274 U. S. 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:
“‘Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.’
“Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 337 U. S. 4; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, Page 376 U. S. 271. …
“We hold today that the Constitution delimits a State’s power to award damages for libel in actions brought by public officials against critics of their official conduct. Since this is such an action, the rule requiring proof of actual malice is applicable.”
From the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):
Criminal defamation laws are relics of a bygone age. The doctrine of seditious libel—which criminalized defamation of the government and its officials—originated in England’s infamous Court of the Star Chamber at the beginning of the 17th century. When John Adams was president, the incumbent Federalist party passed the Sedition Act of 1798, making it a federal crime to libel government officials. The Adams administration brought dozens of prosecutions against publishers and editors aligned with Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic- Republican party. Jefferson thundered against the prosecutions as tyrannical, and allowed the Sedition Act to expire shortly after he won the election of 1800. But Jefferson himself encouraged at least one governor from his party, Thomas McKean of Pennsylvania, to bring state criminal libel prosecutions against Jefferson’s critics in the Federalist press. A century later, President Teddy Roosevelt tried (and failed) to criminally prosecute Joseph Pulitzer and others who had accused Roosevelt of corrupt business dealings related to the purchase of the Panama Canal.
