Thomas, Gorsuch say Supreme Court should revisit landmark libel ruling
Thomas and Gorsuch said the 1964 precedent makes it too hard for public figures to win defamation cases, while the court declined Alan Dershowitz’s appeal.
- Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch believe the 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision should be revisited to reconsider the 'actual malice' standard in defamation cases.
- The 'actual malice' standard requires proving that a defamatory statement was made knowingly false or with reckless disregard for the truth, making defamation suits difficult to win.
- They dissented when the Supreme Court declined to hear Alan Dershowitz's 2020 defamation suit against CNN, arguing for reconsideration of the 'actual malice' standard.
6 Articles
6 Articles
Justice Thomas fires another warning shot over defamation laws
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch believe the 1964 decision of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan should be revisited. The landmark decision established the “actual malice” standard, which has made it difficult for defamation cases to be brought against public figures and media companies. This means a defendant must be able to prove that a defamatory statement was made with reckless disregard of the truth, or with actual knowl…
Justice Thomas fires another warning shot over defamation laws · American Wire News
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch believe the 1964 decision of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan should be revisited. The landmark decision established the “actual malice” standard, which has made it difficult for defamation cases to be brought against public figures and media companies. This means a defendant must be able to prove that a defamatory statement was made with reckless disregard of the truth, or with actual knowl…
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 67% of the sources lean Right
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
