NY Times v Sullivan......all it did was establish an actual malice standard....
That's right, the plaintiff who has been lied about by a newspaper or broadcast must prove malice on the part of the media. Ordinary citizens are guilty of slander by spreading falsehoods, without malice, and in many cases without knowledge of it being false or any intent to do harm.
Big difference. If you don't think so, as Dan Rather.
i think your missing the point, in either case the individual or newspaper thought it to be true, unless you can prove otherwise libel or slander hasnt really taken place....kinda like here, you could prove me guilty of it by posting a picture of it, since you refuse to do so you cant prove me guilty....by refusing to post a picture you refuse to hold up your end of holding me guilty of libel so libel has not occurred...
Last edited by rattler; 12/28/09.
A serious student of the "Armchair Safari" always looking for Africa/Asia hunting books
