Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
NPR News

The Case For Rethinking American Libel Law

(Robert Alexander/Getty Images)
(Robert Alexander/Getty Images)

This story is free to read because readers choose to support LAist. If you find value in independent local reporting, make a donation to power our newsroom today.

Listen 47:20

57 years ago, the Supreme Court heard a case that changed how this country protects freedom of the press.

Constitutional scholar RonNell Anderson Jones says that since Times v. Sullivan, a public figure has to prove a news organization knowingly lied with actual malice.

It’s a standard that first Amendment lawyer Steve Zansberg says is good for democracy:

“It doesn’t so much protect the press, what it protects is our right to receive information,” Zansberg adds. “If we didn’t have the actual malice test we would all suffer from having far less information available to us.”

Now, two Supreme Court justices say in this social media era it’s time to revisit Times v. Sullivan. Is it?

Guests

RonNell Andersen Jones, law professor at the University of Utah College of Law. Fellow at the Yale Law School Information Society Project. (@randersenjones)

Sponsored message

David Logan, law professor at Roger Williams University’s School of Law. Author of the paper Rescuing Our Democracy by Rethinking New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Also Featured

Steve Zansberg, first amendment lawyer based in Denver, Colorado.

From The Reading List

Washington Post: “Opinion: A judge’s astonishing attack on a First Amendment precedent may end up strengthening it instead” — “Federal appeals court judge Laurence H. Silberman’s dangerous dissenting opinion in Tah v. Global Witness Publishing last week has already caused a firestorm — not because he urged the Supreme Court to overrule New York Times v. Sullivan and its ‘actual malice’ defamation standard, but because of the astonishing and disturbing reasons that he proposed for dispensing with that landmark decision.”

Washington Post: “Opinion: The Supreme Court inches closer to a press freedom showdown” — “At the Supreme Court, today’s lonely dissenting opinion sometimes grows into tomorrow’s constitutional law.”

This article was originally published on WBUR.org.

Sponsored message

Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

You come to LAist because you want independent reporting and trustworthy local information. Our newsroom doesn’t answer to shareholders looking to turn a profit. Instead, we answer to you and our connected community. We are free to tell the full truth, to hold power to account without fear or favor, and to follow facts wherever they lead. Our only loyalty is to our audiences and our mission: to inform, engage, and strengthen our community.

Right now, LAist has lost $1.7M in annual funding due to Congress clawing back money already approved. The support we receive from readers like you will determine how fully our newsroom can continue informing, serving, and strengthening Southern California.

If this story helped you today, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.

Your tax-deductible donation keeps LAist independent and accessible to everyone.
Senior Vice President News, Editor in Chief

Make your tax-deductible donation today

A row of graphics payment types: Visa, MasterCard, Apple Pay and PayPal, and  below a lock with Secure Payment text to the right