‘Is US defamation law’s “actual malice” requirement still fit for purpose?’

“United States defamation law has made it famously difficult for claimants to win their cases. However, Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas filed dissents in the case of Berisha v Lawson in July suggesting that a core precedent behind this difficulty is ripe for reconsideration. The precedent in question comes from New York Times v Sullivan, a 1964 Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled unanimously that, on account of freedom of speech provisions in the First Amendment, public officials in government cannot prove libel without firm evidence that the defendant acted with ‘actual malice’ …” (more)

[Georgia Scarr, Inforrm’s Blog, 18 September]

(Visited 48 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply