3 ms·
The difference between the NYT having an opinion and me having an opinion is that only the NYT is protected against lawsuits for libel with a special standard o
by zaroth 7y ago
The difference between the NYT having an opinion and me having an opinion is that only the NYT is protected against lawsuits for libel with a special standard of “actual malice” by the contorted reasoning that anyone they chose to publish an article on must therefore be a public figure.
IANAL, but a good example of this is the coverage of the Covington High School students.
- matt4077 7y agoThe actual malice standard was first defined in a case involving media (the NYT, as it happens), but it applies to anyone, including you.
- wostusername 7y agoI think what the other poster was trying to say is that in the US defamation law treats public figures and non-public figures (and confusingly "limited purpose public figures") differently. The standard of "actual malice" applies to public figures only, the standard is lower for non-public figures. Which invites the question of "Is anyone the NYT writes about automatically a public figure?" Or even a limited purpose public figure? IANAL so I don't know the answer, but I hope the answer is no. Since if the answer is yes it would allow a large media organization to thrust anyone into the spotlight and defame them without recourse as long as "actual malice" can't be established (ie the Covington High kids).