Jake Wunsch
In this White Paper, MLRC has asked multiple experts to examine each of the major contentions that undergird the Justices’ calls for Sullivan to be revisited. Collectively, they make an unassailable case that Sullivan’s rendition of the First Amendment-based limitations on libel law was correct when the case was decided and that it remains equally correct today.
Introduction and Executive Summary
In this White Paper, MLRC has asked multiple experts to examine each of the major contentions that undergird the Justices’ calls for Sullivan to be revisited. Collectively, they make an unassailable case that Sullivan’s rendition of the First Amendment-based limitations on libel law was correct when the case was decided and that it remains equally…
Preface
Even the most enthusiastic praise of a Supreme Court ruling does not necessarily mean that the case was correctly decided or that its reasoning was flawless. So it is well worth revisiting the ruling and assessing its impact on libel law and First Amendment law more generally.
New York Times v. Sullivan: The Case for Preserving an Essential Precedent
A comprehensive White Paper heralding Justice Brennan’s opinion, countering the arguments made by its chief critics, and analyzing the role of actual malice in contemporary litigation.
From the Executive Director’s Desk: Palin v. New York Times: Testing the Actual Malice Standard
Instead of focusing on whether this litigation will be used to overrule Sullivan, its real significance was as a test of whether Sullivan works.
Texas Special Court of Review Vacates Sanction Against County Judge on First Amendment Grounds
After a complaint was filed concerning Eckhardt’s ability to make unbiased decisions based on her partisan political views, the Commission publicly admonished Eckhardt for two separate instances where she allegedly “engag[ed] in willful conduct that cast public discredit upon the judiciary in violation of Article V, Section 1-a(6) of the Texas Constitution.”
Ninth Circuit: FCC Stymied Its Own Ability to Block State Net Neutrality Rules
In a precedential opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of California’s state net neutrality rules, as set forth in the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018.
Roy Moore #MeToo Libel Suit Results in a “Dogfall”
The jury verdict concluded: “[N]either party recover from the other.” However, both sides claimed victory and neither side said they will appeal.
Court Orders Disclosure of Redacted Briefs in Constitutional Challenge to Substance Use Treatment Law
The Kentucky Supreme Court recently held that a news organization was entitled to redacted copies of briefs filed in appeals raising constitutional challenges to a Kentucky substance use disorder treatment law.
Texas Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Defamation and §1983 Case Over Academic Freedom
The debate regarding First Amendment rights on college campuses – especially in today’s contentious environment over the boundaries of acceptable speech – is well illustrated in the recent decision Jackson v. Wright.
Texas Court Affirms Denial of Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss
The Texas anti-SLAPP lawhas broadly safeguarded the constitutional rights of the press to publish freely on matters of public concern. The decision in Polk County Publishing Company v. Coleman, however, provides an example of the outer limits of the TCPA’s protection.