0
0

[–] kommisar6 ago 

I like the NYT test. Even though a lot of the press is doing bad things, this will not always be the case. Instead I would look at anti-trust remedy to break up large media conglomerates and possibly a law converting craigslist or similar want ads sites into public utilities whose proceeds are funneled back into local papers.

0
0

[–] lanre ago 

I'd prefer no libel laws period and that people would just use their heads and not trust stuff blindly, but if we're going to have them then surely lying media should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago 

This isn’t really about politics, though, regardless how the author of the piece couched it. It is a question of whether the First Amendment really should impose different standards for libel depending on the notoriety of the person claiming libel. To be honest, I’ve always felt the reasoning in Sullivan v. New York Times was a bit suspect. But it has been settled law so I learned it and have applied it in practice.

0
1

[–] ScottRockview 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Even a law that compels the press to only tell the objective truth would be great.....but they'd still use shit tactics like lots of "allegedly" and (((anonymous sources))).

0
0

[–] My_Name_is_Not_Sure ago 

So nothing would change is what you’re saying?

0
2

[–] NoRoyalty 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Can we make it retroactive for 36 years?