Media Misinformation Undermines Our Democracy

The Case for Defamation Law Reform

Have you ever wondered why the media seems to feel so emboldened when broadcasting unfounded claims about public figures like Donald Trump, as if they’re shielded from any consequence? The answer lies in a questionable Supreme Court decision from 1964—NY Times v. Sullivan—which established a novel and radical interpretation of the First Amendment that has, for six decades, let media outlets slander public figures with impunity.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, yes, but nowhere in its text does it explicitly allow the press to defame individuals without consequence. Yet in 1964, in a 9-0 decision authored by Justice William Brennan, a Supreme Court dominated by activist judges established a precedent without clear constitutional grounding, declaring that public figures could only succeed in defamation suits if they could prove “actual malice”—that is, that the media knowingly lied or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The justices defined this standard of “actual malice” in a way that makes it exceedingly difficult for any public figure to win a defamation case. The lawyer who proposed the standard, Herbert Wechsler, argued on behalf of the New York Times, and his arguments were pivotal in the Court's adoption of this stringent requirement. They created an almost impossible bar to clear for proving harm. The ruling has allowed media organizations—whose biases are increasingly clear—to publish distortions, spin, and outright falsehoods about figures like Donald Trump without fear of legal reprisal.

In practice, the “actual malice” requirement has served the interests of the mainstream media, giving it a near-impenetrable shield against defamation liability, especially in lawsuits involving conservatives. The overwhelming bias in today’s media ensures that Republicans, particularly President Trump, face a perpetual barrage of hostile and false narratives, while those perpetuating these narratives remain untouchable. It’s a convenient arrangement—for the left, that is.

The decision in NY Times v. Sullivan cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. Nothing in the original text, structure, or public understanding of the First Amendment points to the notion that the media deserves special immunity from accountability. This interpretation wasn’t drawn from some obscure corner of the Constitution; it was invented, pure and simple. Even if we were to concede that the original intent of the First Amendment was to promote open and robust public debate, it does not logically follow that this would mean granting carte blanche to spread provable lies with near-zero liability. Journalists, unlike private citizens, benefit from various protections, including shield laws, which are designed to allow them to operate freely in pursuit of the truth. Shield laws are legal provisions that protect journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources or unpublished information gathered during news gathering, allowing them to work without fear of retribution or exposure of their sources. With these protections comes an increased responsibility. They are in a unique position, with access to resources such as editors, fact-checkers, and an extensive understanding of the public figures they cover. As professionals, they should be held to a higher standard of accountability because they are in a position to know better. If anything, true open discourse is undermined when falsehoods can be disseminated without consequence.

As if the constitutional gymnastics weren’t troubling enough, the practical impact of this decision has been deeply problematic. The “actual malice” standard disproportionally benefits one political side—a side that just so happens to be ideologically aligned with the overwhelming majority of media corporations. Today, mainstream outlets can launch reckless, unsubstantiated attacks on Republicans without facing the same fear of reprisal that might otherwise incentivize accuracy and fairness. We saw it during the Trump presidency, and we’re seeing it again as voters descend upon the polls today to decide whether or not to send him back to the White House. Recent biased media coverage has negatively influenced voter perceptions of Trump, thereby interfering in the election process. This further emphasizes the necessity of reform to prevent undue media influence. The media knows that all they need is a minimal level of plausible deniability—some vague claim that “we didn’t know this was false”—to remain free of liability, even when their narrative has already been widely debunked. Meanwhile, countless victims of their careless reporting are left without any recourse.

Of course, the media will argue that this is fair—they claim, after all, that the same standard applies to public figures from all political affiliations. But let’s not be naive. The bias we see is overwhelming. The “actual malice” standard may be theoretically neutral, but it is wielded with prejudice. For decades, Republican public figures, especially those who challenge establishment norms like Donald Trump, have borne the brunt of media slander—a form of slander that has conveniently never quite crossed the line into “actual malice.”

Consider the infamous Russia collusion hoax. Mainstream media, protected by NY Times v. Sullivan, ran headline after headline, story after story, about Trump's alleged collusion with Russia. Yet, as we know now, these accusations were a fabrication—political propaganda cooked up by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party to undermine his presidency. The damage, however, was done, and under the 'actual malice' rule, media outlets walked away unscathed, even after reports were shown to be false. They didn't even bother to apologize. Mainstream media, protected by NY Times v. Sullivan, ran headline after headline, story after story, about Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. Yet, as we know now, these accusations was a fabrication—political propaganda cooked up by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party to undermine his presidency. The damage, however, was done, and under the “actual malice” rule, media outlets walked away unscathed, even after reports were shown to be false. They didn't even bother to apologize.

The doctrine must be revisited, and the Court must undo the damage caused by its activist predecessors. Overturning NY Times v. Sullivan would not be about silencing the press; it would be about restoring accountability. It would force media corporations to think twice before publishing salacious headlines or recycling unverified accusations. A responsible press should not fear the truth—it should embrace it. But when it becomes evident that negligence or recklessness are at the core of their operations, consequences must follow.

Some prominent legal scholars, including Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have noted that it might be time to reconsider the “actual malice” precedent. In their eyes—and in the eyes of anyone who values fairness—this activist decision has had its day and outlived its justification. Defamation law is traditionally a matter for the states. Nothing in our Constitution necessitates federal meddling in this domain, much less the creation of blanket immunity for the press.

If a state legislature wishes to enact defamation laws that shield the media in certain circumstances, so be it. But let it be a decision made by elected representatives—a decision that can be debated, scrutinized, and overturned by the people. Congress could even legislate a similar standard, but again, that choice should rest in the hands of the people’s representatives—not in an invented Supreme Court doctrine. This overreach by the Court should be corrected, allowing states like Texas, whose Attorney General and Governor are keen defenders of individual rights, to establish a defamation framework that reflects the interests of their people. Notably, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) has been a vocal advocate for revisiting the "actual malice" standard. As recently as today, he expressed concerns on X (formerly Twitter) about the challenges public figures face in defamation cases due to this precedent.

Ultimately, dismantling NY Times v. Sullivan’s unjust protection would help level the playing field. Media reform is essential not only for fairness but also for protecting the integrity of elections, as current standards allow misinformation that could sway voter opinions. It would curb the blatant political favoritism by the media, provide meaningful redress for individuals harmed by slanderous falsehoods, and restore some much-needed integrity to public discourse. This doctrine’s time has come, and if we are to have any hope of achieving true media accountability, it must be overturned.

This is more than a call for judicial review—it’s a plea for fairness, for the restoration of truth, and for a system where lies are not just another form of political strategy. Let’s remind the press that the First Amendment was meant to protect the truth—not provide a shield for lies.