The article below, with the title, leads the day-to-day reader to believe what the outcome was regarding the legal dispute that went before the Alaska Supreme Court.
Alaska Supreme Court rules in favor of critical Native corp. shareholder by Jacob Resneck, CoastAlaska – Juneau – January 12, 2021
This is an example of how media misuses it’s platform as a “perceived” trusted source of information.
This misuse has negative effects impacting not only the legal authority of our justice system, but dilutes the public trust in actual scientific research.
The fact of the legal opinion is found in the quote buried in this article by Jacob Resnick.
He writes in his article—Orlansky said the Alaska Supreme Court ruling is a win for her client. And she said the justices’ decision outlines how the state’s regulations potentially fall afoul of the U.S. Constitution on free speech and due process grounds…..
The exact quote by Orlansky is:
“But the Supreme Court very clearly didn’t decide those questions. It did what courts often do, and decided the issue in front of it, and very specifically nothing further,” she added.
That being said, the only thing the Supreme Court wrote an opinion on was the monetary fine and Civil sanction that Austin Ahmasuk used to wager as a Constitutional Violating issue.
Susan Orlansky was not listed as an ACLU lawyer representing Austin Ahmasuk in the Supreme Court Opinion.
The ACLU website does not list Austin Ahmasuk as a current client and does not reference his case under their Freedom of Speech Banner of Issues.
So how can a journalist, who works for a publicly funded media outlet, be allowed to twist the truth to the public regarding the Opinion given by the highest judicial authority in Alaska? The Supreme Court of Alaska?
“After review, the Supreme Court concluded Ahmasuk’s opinion letter was not a proxy solicitation under the Division’s controlling regulations, therefore reversing the superior court’s decision upholding the Division’s civil sanction against Ahmasuk without reaching the constitutional arguments.” https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2021/s-17414.html