Media Matters

The Death of Actual Malice: Greatly Exaggerated

Casino magnate Steve Wynn took a big swing at overturning a landmark press freedom ruling, but the Supreme Court basically … Read More

Making Marsy’s Law (better)

When Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment known as “Marsy’s Law” – named for Marsy Nicholas, the UC Santa Barbara … Read More

Actual Malice Is Not “Malice”

Even as plaintiffs in defamation cases attack the actual malice standard, they often mistake what “actual malice” really means. A … Read More

Notes on the Jones Verdicts

A few notes for the media from the Alex Jones verdicts: Although Jones forfeited his right to mount a First … Read More

The Coming Embed Tsunami

Once upon a time, it was safe to an embed an image on a website. Those days are gone. Two federal … Read More

Embedders Beware!

Another federal court judge in New York has held that embedding provides no protection against a copyright infringement claim, and … Read More

4/14 - Warner Bros. Discovery is seeking to quash a subpoena from Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requesting unedited interview footage from the documentary "The Fall of Diddy." Citing the "reporter's privilege,” WBD argues the materials from interviews are protected under the First Amendment and that Combs hasn't met the legal threshold to overcome the privilege, noting courts typically reject broad requests for unpublished journalistic content. WBD also highlights that such interview materials would constitute inadmissible hearsay in Combs' upcoming sex trafficking and racketeering trial, scheduled to begin on May 5. The judge has given Combs until Thursday to respond to the motion.

3/25 - The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear casino mogul Steve Wynn's appeal challenging the 1964 precedent set by New York Times v. Sullivan. This landmark decision established the "actual malice" standard, requiring public figures to prove that defamatory statements were made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. Wynn's defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press, stemming from reports of 1970s-era sexual misconduct allegations, was dismissed under this standard. The Court's decision not to revisit Sullivan maintains the existing standard for defamation, allowing news organizations to report on such figures without the threat of excessive litigation.

3/6 - A New York judge is considering dismissing the New York Times from a $400 million defamation case brought by actor Justin Baldoni. The lawsuit alleges the Times colluded with actress Blake Lively to smear him after she accused him of sexual harassment. The judge indicated that the Times' motion for dismissal had "substantial grounds" based on First Amendment concerns. Baldoni claims the Times amplified Lively's false narrative in an article, while the Times argues it was merely engaging in newsgathering, that plaintiff did not show it acted with malicious intent and that the sole alleged defamatory statement in the article (that the plaintiff orchestrated a "smear campaign" in retaliation to Lively’s claims) was protected opinion. The court has temporarily stayed discovery pending a decision on the Times's motion.

2/27 - Earlier this month the LA Superior Court denied Variety magazine's motion to dismiss the defamation lawsuit brought against it by director Francis Ford Coppola. Judge Christopher Lui found that statements made in the article, such as a claim that Coppola allegedly “kept leaping up to hug and kiss several women” and that he ruined a scene by inserting himself into the shot, could be construed as defamatory and damaging to Coppola's reputation. The court did hold, however, that Coppola’s contention that reporting that the film lacked human resources oversight defamed him should be dismissed.

2/13 - A Florida appeals court upheld a lower court's decision allowing President Trump's defamation lawsuit against Pulitzer Prize Board members to proceed. The decision hinged on whether the lower court had jurisdiction over the non-Florida resident board members. The court held that President Trump's operative pleading sufficiently alleged that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defame him, a Florida resident, and that they issued a public statement alleged to be defamatory in response to the requests of a Florida resident (Trump), all of which was sufficient to support jurisdiction in Florida.

View All

Media Matters

Cameron Stracher

Get the Media Matters newsletter delivered straight to your inbox!