4 ms·
No, I don't think that's it. I think OP is referring to "NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN" where the Supreme Court placed the bar of something being libel as the
by icegreentea2 9y ago
No, I don't think that's it.
I think OP is referring to "NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN" where the Supreme Court placed the bar of something being libel as the accused having 'actual malice' which is in itself is somewhat slipperly defined as having knowledge that they were lying, or recklessly not investigating what they were publishing.
- Lazare 9y agoI dunno if that's what OP meant or not, but either way I'd note the actual malice standard only applies to public officials and public figures, which is defined fairly narrowly. I certainly don't think that qualifies as a decision that "the news media can lie". In fact, to the extent you can prove the news media was lying in a report about a public figure (that is, the news media published something they knew to be false), that's explicitly covered. That's the opposite of what OP claimed.