The seminal 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan limited the ability of public officials to silence their critics by successfully suing them for defamation. Sullivan made "American public officials more accountable, the American media more watchful, and the American people better informed," said William Rehnquist, the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But Sullivan is increasingly under attack from politicians, activists, and even sitting Justices of the Supreme Court. They believe the decision went too far, enabling the news media and others to defame others with little-to-no consequence. On today's show, we are joined by lawyers Floyd Abrams (Cahill Gordon & Reindel), JT Morris (FIRE), and Matthew Schafer (Fordham Law) to discuss New York Times v. Sullivan and its future. Show notes:

• Transcript

• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

• "Two Justices Say Supreme Court Should Reconsider Landmark Libel Decision" by Adam Liptak

• "How to Restore Balance to Libel Law" by Glenn Reynolds

• Florida HB 991, the anti-Sullivan bill

• Matthew Schafer's tweet thread on Florida's HB 991

• "New York Times v. Sullivan and the Forgotten Session of the US Supreme Court" by Matthew Schafer

• "The Most Important Supreme Court Precedent for Freedom of the Press Is in Jeopardy" by Matthew Schafer and Jeff Kosseff

www.sotospeakpodcast.com

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk

Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/

Email us: [email protected]