This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Constitutional Law

Jan. 31, 2025

Free speech vs. Fake news: Is Sullivan still supreme?

New York Times v. Sullivan protects free speech by requiring public figures to prove "actual malice" in defamation cases--essential for democracy, though critics now challenge its relevance in the digital age.

John H. Minan

Emeritus Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

Professor Minan is a former attorney with the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and the former chairman of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board.

Shutterstock

The constitutional guarantee of free speech and the law of libel, which includes defamatory statements in writing or some other permanent form of communication, often collide. The collision occurs because defamation law gives public officials and public figures a powerful cudgel to stifle and punish critics or commentators.    

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Sign up for Daily Journal emails