5 ms·
Truth is an absolute defense to libel in the US. Furthermore because this is the sort of reporting on a matter of public concern that society benefits from the
by wbl 5y ago
Truth is an absolute defense to libel in the US. Furthermore because this is the sort of reporting on a matter of public concern that society benefits from the standard gets tighter: it's not enough to show something was false, you have to show the publication should have known or acted maliciously in publishing. Incredibly high bar.
- ethbr0 5y agoTruth or (as you point out) ignorance. Which is different from the UK and a lot of other countries. But the practical question is: can The Intercept afford a legal fight against Dow?
- SpelingBeeChamp 5y agoThey likely have insurance for that sort of thing. I produce content for Youtube and even I have a media liability policy.
- voisin 5y agoHow much does that cost and how is it priced?
- _jal 5y agoYeah, but you still have to defend it in court, and that's an expensive distraction. There is currently a bit of a rash of high-profile, low-probability-of-success libels suits going on. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if publishers are being especially cautious.
- topspin 5y agoCowardice then.
- hypersoar 5y agoThe super strong libel immunity only kicks in for public figures. These random managers probably aren't. So negligence is the bar for liability, not the Actual Malice of NYT v. Sullivan.
- dogleash 5y agoI don’t know my jurisprudence very well, but as I recall a government employee acting in an official capacity is a public figure by default.