First Amendment Protections for Journalists
Loading...
Location
Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Event Website
https://www.villanovalawreview.com/
Publication Date
2025
Start Date
21-2-2025 9:15 AM
End Date
21-2-2025 10:30 AM
Description
Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court decided New York Times v. Sullivan, a case that constitutionalized the tort of defamation, requiring public figures who sued for defamation to prove the speaker acted with “reckless disregard for the truth or falsity” of statements. Later cases transformed defamation from a virtual strict liability tort to requiring at least some fault, even for private figure plaintiffs. Many, including Supreme Court justices, public figures and legal scholars, have called for overturning this doctrine, arguing it has gutted the tort of defamation, leaving individuals who have suffered serious harm remediless and rouge speakers unjustifiably immunized from the consequences of their actions. While the doctrine shields all speakers, the press has benefitted most from its protections. Has the doctrine outlived its usefulness? Did it spawn the current climate of vicious attacks and disinformation? Does speech need “breathing room,” or have we protected falsity in the name of truth and now reap the whirlwind?
First Amendment Protections for Journalists
Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court decided New York Times v. Sullivan, a case that constitutionalized the tort of defamation, requiring public figures who sued for defamation to prove the speaker acted with “reckless disregard for the truth or falsity” of statements. Later cases transformed defamation from a virtual strict liability tort to requiring at least some fault, even for private figure plaintiffs. Many, including Supreme Court justices, public figures and legal scholars, have called for overturning this doctrine, arguing it has gutted the tort of defamation, leaving individuals who have suffered serious harm remediless and rouge speakers unjustifiably immunized from the consequences of their actions. While the doctrine shields all speakers, the press has benefitted most from its protections. Has the doctrine outlived its usefulness? Did it spawn the current climate of vicious attacks and disinformation? Does speech need “breathing room,” or have we protected falsity in the name of truth and now reap the whirlwind?
https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/shachoy_symposium/2025/proceedings/2
Comments
Moderated by Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion & Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova Law