华盛顿-这最高法院周一拒绝恢复对CNN提起的3亿美元诽谤诉讼，该诉讼涉及CNN对一名著名律师在2020年弹劾唐纳德·特朗普总统期间为其辩护时发表的言论的报道。
大多数人以一个简短的、未加解释的命令拒绝接手此案。法官尼尔·戈萨奇和克拉伦斯·托马斯持不同意见，呼吁法院重新考虑对声称诽谤的公众人物的法律标准。
艾伦·德肖维茨说根据法庭文件，新闻网只播出了他为总统辩护时发表的一部分评论，歪曲了他的意思，让他看起来像是“失去了理智”。
该网络表示，多家媒体以类似的方式解读了他的言论，德肖维茨无法证明CNN试图曲解他的话。
在上诉中，德肖维茨敦促法院重新考虑纽约时报公司诉沙利文案。具有里程碑意义的第一修正案使得公众人物更难赢得诽谤诉讼，因为它需要证明一个渠道故意发布虚假的东西，或者表现出对真相的不顾后果。
退休的哈佛大学法学院教授和法律评论员德尔肖维茨(Dershowitz)是特朗普弹劾审判期间的辩护团队成员，他被指控特朗普希望从乌克兰获得政治好处，以换取美国的军事援助。特朗普是被参议院宣判无罪.
德肖维茨在回答一个问题时说，“唯一能使交换变得不合法的是，如果交换在某种程度上是不合法的。”提供向乌克兰提供武器他说，并不违法。
他声称，CNN只是播放了他片刻后所说的话:“我认识的每一位公职人员都认为他的当选符合公共利益，而且大多数情况下，他们是对的，你的当选符合公共利益，如果总统做了他认为有助于他当选符合公共利益的事情，这不可能是导致弹劾的交换条件。”
Dershowitz说，编辑让他看起来好像是在说，只要他是为了连任而这样做，总统就可以避免因非法行为而被弹劾——他在最初的诉讼中称这个概念“表面上看起来荒谬而愚蠢”
美国有线电视新闻网反驳说，它确实在直播中播放了他的全部言论，并邀请他再两次阐述他的意思。
下级法院驳回了诉讼，认为德肖维茨没有证明CNN在报道中有“实际恶意”，因此没有达到《纽约时报》诉沙利文案设定的标准。
Supreme Court won't revive Alan Dershowitz's $300 million suit against CNN
WASHINGTON --TheSupreme Courtrefused Monday to revive a $300 million defamation lawsuit filed against CNN over its coverage of a prominent attorney's remarks made while defending President Donald Trump during his 2020 impeachment.
The majority declined to take up the case in a brief, unexplained order. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented, calling on the court to reconsider the legal standards for public figures who claim defamation.
Alan Dershowitz saidthe news network aired only a portion of the comment made during his defense of the president, distorting his meaning to make him look like he’d “lost his mind,” according to court documents.
The network said that multiple outlets had interpreted his remarks in a similar way, and Dershowitz couldn’t show CNN was trying to mischaracterize what he said.
In his appeal, Dershowitz had urged the court to reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The landmark First Amendment case that made it harder for public figures to win libel lawsuits because it requires proof that an outlet knowingly published something false, or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor and legal commentator, was part of Trump's defense team during his impeachment trial over allegations that Trump wanted political favors from Ukraine in return for U.S. military aid. Trump wasacquitted by the Senate.
Dershowitz responded to a question at one point by saying, “the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal." Providingarms to Ukraine, he said, isn't illegal.
He alleged that CNN only played what he said moments later: “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and, mostly, they are right, your election is in the public interest, and if the president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
Dershowitz said the edit made it seem like he was arguing a president could avoid impeachment for illegal acts as long as he was doing it to get reelected – a concept his original suit called “preposterous and foolish on its face.”
CNN countered by saying it did air his full remarks during its live coverage, and invited him on twice more to expand on his meaning.
Lower courts tossed out the suit, finding that Dershowitz hadn’t shown CNN acted with “actual malice” in its reporting, making it fall short of the standard set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
