A glimmer of hope for free speech advocates has emerged in the US Supreme Court, but it's a faint one. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas has expressed his continued skepticism of the "actual malice" standard in defamation cases, a ruling that has been in place since New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964. The standard, which requires plaintiffs to prove that a defendant published a false statement with "actual malice," has been criticized for its chilling effect on public discourse and the media's ability to hold those in power accountable. While Thomas's dissent is not a surprise, given his earlier statements on the matter, it's a significant development that may signal potential changes in the court's stance on free speech and defamation law.
From today's dissent from the denial of certiorari in Dershowitz v. CNN, Inc., written by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice… The post Still Just Two Votes (No Evidence of More) for Overruling "Actual Malice" Test in Defamation Cases appeared first on Reason.com.
