In a significant ruling, the US Supreme Court denied a petition seeking to revise the stringent ‘actual malice’ standard required for libel suits against media outlets, as reported by Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, a noteworthy legal affairs contributor for Bloomberg Law.
The ruling affirms the consequential precedent established in New York Times Company v. Sullivan . Under this landmark decision, persons filing defamation suits against newspapers, television networks and other media houses must prove ‘actual malice’- a legal standard that prescribes that the defendant knowingly made false claims or acted in reckless disregard of the truth.
The failed challenge to the ‘actual malice’ standard came from former coal executive and one-time US Senate candidate Don Blankenship. He alleged that his Senate campaign was sabotaged by several media entities including NBCUniversal and Fox News. Maintaining that these media houses spawned unfounded claims against him, Blankenship sought to modify the ‘actual malice’ principle.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of this petition, the legal sanctity of the protection afforded to the press remains intact. Importantly, these legal safeguards are viewed as being instrumental in holding public figures and government officials to account for their actions, underscoring the relevance of the Supreme Court’s recent decision.
More specifics on the matter would be available in the original report by Bloomberg Law.