As usual, dumbass, you miss the point of NYT v. Sullivan....the critical factor is not that it's a newspaper making the questioned statement. In fact, the allegedly false and defamatory statement in Sullivan wasn't even a news story or editorial, it was in a paid advertisement.
the key holding of Sullivan is that a public official must prove actual malice....which means publishing statements known to be false or with reckless disregard of whether they're true or not....in order to recover general damages for defamatory statements related to his official duties.
Proudly representing oil companies, defense contractors, and firearms manufacturers since 1980. Because merchants of death need lawyers, too.
