Media Matters

Duke sings the “White Lotus” blues

Now that The White Lotus has wrapped, talk of Duke University is fading. But as attorneys who love both Duke … Read More

Newsweek Wins Defamation Case Brought by The Satanic Temple

A long-running legal battle between The Satanic Temple and Newsweek has finally wrapped up—with the firm’s client, Newsweek, emerging on … Read More

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

5/1 - In a legal motion filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, attorneys for Warner Bros. and Ample LLC argue that Chris Brown’s $500 million defamation lawsuit over the documentary Chris Brown: A History of Violence should be dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects against lawsuits aimed at chilling free speech on matters of public interest. Brown’s lawsuit, filed in January, claims the documentary knowingly spread false and damaging accusations, harming his reputation and career. He also alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress and seeks punitive damages. Defendants contend the documentary's portrayal of Brown, including allegations of sexual assault, constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment and California’s fair report privilege. They characterize Brown’s suit as a typical attempt by a public figure to silence critical media coverage based on information from public records and legal proceedings.

4/25 - A federal jury ruled against Sarah Palin in her defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, marking the second time a jury has cleared the newspaper of liability. Palin had sued over a 2017 editorial that erroneously linked her political action committee to a 2011 mass shooting, a claim the Times quickly corrected and apologized for. Central to the legal battle was the high bar set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), which requires public figures to prove "actual malice"—that the false statement was published knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Palin’s legal team sought to challenge this precedent, arguing it was outdated and unjustly burdensome for public figures. However, the jury found after only two hours of deliberation that Palin’s actions did not meet the threshold for actual malice. The appeals court had previously overturned a 2022 dismissal, allowing for the retrial. Legal experts say the case underscores how difficult it is for public figures to succeed in defamation suits, even when journalistic errors occur. Palin has not yet announced if she will appeal.

4/21 - Sarah Palin's defamation retrial against The New York Times began Tuesday. Palin claims the Times "deliberately disregarded" the truth when it erroneously linked her PAC's campaign materials to the 2011 Tucson shooting that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. This marks Palin's third attempt to hold the newspaper liable after a federal appeals court vacated the previous dismissal in 2024. Her lawyers argue the Times' quick correction was insufficient because it didn't mention Palin by name or include an apology. The Times maintains it corrected the record "as loudly, clearly, and quickly as possible" after realizing its mistake in suggesting a "clear" link between Palin's crosshairs map and the shooting. The case tests established legal protections for media against defamation claims by public figures. Under the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, public figures must prove "actual malice" to prevail in defamation suits - a standard the Supreme Court recently declined to review in a separate case.

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.

View All

Media Matters

Cameron Stracher

Get the Media Matters newsletter delivered straight to your inbox!