Should the Press Be Restrained? Re-examining Libel Laws
Posted
October 3, 2019
Views
1,417
Likes
73
Comments
10
Engagement
5.86%
October 3, 2019
1,417
73
10
5.86%
Every word spoken in this episode is indexed. Type any phrase to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Type any word or phrase that may have been spoken. Click a result to seek the player to that exact moment.
Try a name, a topic, or a quoted line
See what was published immediately before and after this episode.
1:04:30Now PlayingAmerica’s Founders understood the press as both a necessary component of republican government and a potential threat to political liberty.
They counted on libel laws to restrain the press’s natural excesses. But the Supreme Court dramatically changed the nature of libel law in its landmark 1964 decision, New York Times v. Sullivan. How has this ruling changed the character of America’s press, and what have been long term consequences of this ruling? Should this decision be revisited? Our panel of experts considers whether stronger libel laws against the press should be revived.
Participants:
David Azerrad, Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics and AWC Family Foundation Fellow
Arthur Milikh, Associate Director and Research Fellow, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics
Elizabeth Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLP
Lee Levine, Senior Counsel, Ballard Spahr LLP
Sentinel Indexing in Progress
Metadata and chapters are available. Claim extraction for this episode is pending.
All video content is delivered via YouTube embedded players in accordance with the YouTube Terms of Service. Sentinel provides research tools that promote discovery and accountability across political media.
