3 ms·
It is, but I'm not certain the courts will interpret it the same way when applied to a large media corporation making many statements over a long period of time
by omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
It is, but I'm not certain the courts will interpret it the same way when applied to a large media corporation making many statements over a long period of time.
Like rayiner said, the courts have been protective of media corporation's free speech, but those were cases involving defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress, not an insurrection with the intent to detain and possibly murder elected officials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
- tiahura 6y agoBoth of those cases were unanimous decisions upholding free speech. Moreover, they were civil, not criminal cases.
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y agoThey were, and they addressed parody and defamation, which I'm guessing wouldn't apply to a case, civil or criminal, about whether media corporations incited an insurrection.