[–] [deleted] 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.
[–] ScottRockview 0 points 1 point 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))).
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.
[–] NoRoyalty 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Can we make it retroactive for 36 years?