Thomas, Gorsuch say court should revisit libel standard for public figures

[Geee]

Fox News

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch disagreed with the high court’s decision to turn away a case that challenged libel protections for journalists and the media.

Both justices said today’s news media environment played a role in their view the court needed to reassess libel protections.  

A landmark 1964 case determined that public figures had to prove false statements made about them in the media were intentionally harmful. Thomas questioned the "actual malice" standard from the New York Times vs. Sullivan case. The case determined that public figures had a higher burden to prove defamation than private ones. Public figures have to prove that a statement made was known to be false and made with disregard for its accuracy. The case has made it difficult for libel cases to succeed. 

[Draggingtree]

So what does that mean in the long run  ?  anybody

[Geee]

14 minutes ago, Draggingtree said:

So what does that mean in the long run  ?  anybody

It means nothing will change. Same old same old.