>Laughable again, especially given that several justices have indicated overturning or at least weakening cases like Sullivan. I for one would actually like to

>Laughable again, especially given that several justices have indicated overturning or at least weakening cases like Sullivan. I for one would actually like to see a return to Sullivan and a more narrow and focused ruling delivered. In a practical sense, the "actual malice" standard is basically impossible to prove in court unless you (somehow) find text or video recording of someone explicitly stating such, but even then it's hard. Moreover it exists as, basically, a mechanism to say anything you want about public figures with the intention of libeling them. I am as pro First Amendment as you will find on this website, and revisiting NYT v. Sullivan would be a good idea in order to settle the issue. Maybe being able to make up whatever you want and say it about public figures is actually what the Founders and SCOTUS intended. Jefferson would probably say yes. Franklin, likely not.