Press Freedom Prevails as Supreme Court Holds the Line

The big difference in press freedoms between the UK and the United States is a case called New York Times v. Sullivan. That case, decided in 1964, basically established the baseline for press freedoms in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that when it comes to public figures, to sue for defamation successfully, a public figure must show that the press reported with “actual malice” and a “reckless disregard for the truth.”

That standard allows journalists in the United States to report aggressively without incurring libel suits, fostering a strong investigative press. The flip side, of course, is that it also allows tabloid publications like The National Enquirer and even TMZ to flourish because they’re allowed to publish gossip and innuendo without fear of retribution.

In fact, that’s why Johnny Depp sued The Sun in the UK before suing Amber Heard in the United States — there is no actual malice standard there, and the burden is on the defendant to prove what they published was true (The Sun had called Depp a “wife beater” in a headline). The irony, of course, is that The Sun was able to marshal enough credible evidence to support the headline, while Depp won a significant award in the United States by showing that Heard had defamed him by publishing false information in a Washington Post op-ed with actual malice. That, however, had less to do with journalistic standards and more to do with shitty unpredictable jurors in the United States (she did nothing wrong).

It’s also why we often hear about members of the Royal Family successfully suing UK tabloids but almost never going after U.S. tabloids—even the ones that have practically made a living off publishing salacious and often untrue rumors about Meghan Markle.

In any case, the right has long wanted to test the NYTimes v. Sullivan standard in the United States (because they don’t really care about the First Amendment). Donald Trump donor and casino mogul Steve Wynn took the first crack at it, suing the Associated Press for reporting in 2018 that he had raped a woman decades earlier. Thankfully (while also recognizing the double-edged sword here), the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, standing by the landmark ruling—which allows me to continue asserting that Eddie Redmayne is the son of Satan, because no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Therefore, I am not printing an allegation with actual malice because: 1) I actually believe it, and 2) it’s so clearly true.

For what it’s worth, the NYTimes v. Sullivan standard won’t be triggered in what may be one of the biggest boneheaded moves in U.S. national security history, after Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic was added to a group chat between the (sober?) Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and a number of other national security officials (including J.D. Vance), where the group discussed highly sensitive war plans against Yemen.

But sure, Hillary Clinton acid-washed her emails.