Copy
View this email in your browser

Manhattan Contrarian

Excerpts:

Is It Time To Overrule New York Times v. Sullivan?

* Likely, most readers of this blog have heard of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of New York Times v. Sullivan, which came down in 1964. That case imposed a big limitation on the state law of libel, said to be based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. * The law of libel — which is a matter of state rather than federal law, and mostly of common law rather than statutory law — generally allows a plaintiff to sue someone who harms his reputation by publishing false statements about him. At the time of the New York Times decision in the 1960s, there was widespread perception that state libel rules were being abused by public officials to silence legitimate criticism of them by the press. * The holding of New York Times v. Sullivan was that, to be consistent with the First Amendment, a public official cannot sue for libel, even based on published false statements, unless the official proves that the publisher acted with “actual malice” in making the statements. Subsequent federal court decisions have expanded the protections of the rule to apply not only to “public officials,” but also to “public figures” — a broad and indefinite category that might include anyone who speaks out on any subject of public interest. * But has the pendulum now swung too far?
Read on »

Copyright © 2018 Manhattan Contrarian
Permission to quote granted, if accompanied by attribution and link.


Our mailing address is:
85 Broad St
28th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.