Quote:
Originally Posted by Botten
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Steve Wynn's petition to the Supreme Court to overturn the New York Times v. Sullivan decision is indeed significant. The 1964 ruling established a high bar for public figures to win defamation lawsuits, requiring them to prove "actual malice" — that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
If the Supreme Court were to overturn this decision, it could weaken press freedoms and make it easier for public figures to sue media organizations for defamation. This could lead to a chilling effect on investigative journalism, as media outlets might become more cautious about publishing critical stories out of fear of legal repercussions.
In terms of propaganda, this change could be exploited to silence critics and control the narrative. Public figures and powerful entities could use defamation lawsuits to intimidate and deter journalists and media outlets from reporting on controversial or damaging information. This could result in a less informed public and a media landscape that is more susceptible to manipulation and misinformation.
What are your thoughts on this potential shift in press freedom?
|
I am totally for people being able to sue media for misinformation.
Individuals can speak however they want, but for profit corporations are not "people" and they should not have the same rights.