Should the U.S. Supreme Court revisit the Sullivan v New York Times Co.?

• In Event: IMET, Law & Policy, Multicultural Studies & Research Divisions - Research Presentation (Virtual)
  In Paper Competition: Law & Policy Division - Top Research Presentation (Virtual)

Abstract

Two associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have mentioned their desire to revisit the landmark New York Times Co. v Sullivan case, a 1964 ruling in which the high court held unanimously that for a libel suit to be successful, a complaint who is a public figure must prove that the offending statement was made with “actual malice." The case established a new normal under which public officials could only succeed in a libel case if they could prove that the offending statements were made with the awareness that they were false, something that was revolutionary at the time. Ultimately, the New York Times Co. v Sullivan case set the precedent for all future defamation cases to come. This review will show that the Sullivan case must be revisited as the fact-checking technology we have today shouldn’t even allow for cases of defamation.

Authors

• Nikki Emi Wong, Loyola Marymount University

• Brynn Shaffer, Loyola Marymount University

• Caroline Mackinney Walker, Loyola Marymount University

• Shaunt Dawson, Loyola Marymount University