No, but I think that's an irrelevant strawman. Unless maybe you were issued a fine for a violation that was brought to light in the other trial, but I still str

No, but I think that's an irrelevant strawman. Unless maybe you were issued a fine for a violation that was brought to light in the other trial, but I still struggle to see the relevance. Maybe you could flesh out your example a bit with reference to Volokh's amicus (which I think is better reading than the LA Times article) or some of the precedents it cites? I don't have a strong opinion here. I presumed I was missing some of the backstory, and was asking Josh because I respect his opinion on technical matters and wondered what made him seem so certain that this was an important principle to preserve. As I look deeper, I think the key the "must uphold" side is the belief that choosing to quote another is an independent speech act, and needs independent consideration. Unlike copyright or dangerous products, libel is considered a purely civil affair, and thus does not have the same remedies that those do. My doubt is whether an "aggregator" site without independent editorial voice should be entitled to this protection.