NEW YORK TIMES Editorial: …This tension lies at the heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee that “no law” may abridge “the freedom of speech, or of the press.” How is society to preserve open criticism of the government, while also protecting individuals from libel, or the publication of damaging false statements?…
Fifty years ago this Sunday, the Supreme Court answered that question with a landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. The ruling instantly changed libel law in the United States, and it still represents the clearest and most forceful defense of press freedom in American history…
[The] court announced a new “actual malice” standard that requires a public official to prove that the defendant knew the statement was false, or recklessly disregarded its truth or falsity. (Private citizens rightly have a lower hurdle to clear; generally, they need only show that a falsehood is the result of negligence.)… (more)
EDITOR: Without that ruling, NewsLanc could not exist. The risk and expense of litigation would be too great.
Amen editor. Unfortunately many people do not recognize the great value of a free press. Yet the desire to regulate the media seems to be a never ending government quest. The now discredited “fairness doctrine”, the desire to define (and perhaps license) who is a journalist, and the recent FCC CIN plan to place government monitors in newsrooms, are examples telling us we must be vigilant if we want a free and uninhibited press.