Contemporary United States Law Regarding Online Social Media Libel Standards on the 50th Year Anniversary of Times v Sullivan and 40th Year Anniversary of Gertz v Welch
-
Joshua Azriel
PhD is an Associate Professor of Communication and the Journalism and Citizen Media. Director at Kennesaw State University
and
Charles Mayo
PhD is a Professor of Communication and Director of Graduate Studies in Communication at Kennesaw State University
Abstract
2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the US Supreme Court decisions in Times v Sullivan and 40th anniversary of Gertz v Welch. These two decisions by the US Supreme Court had an important legal impact in the United States on federal law pertaining to libel, specifically proving actual malice and who is defined as a public figure or public official. This article analyzes both Supreme Court decisions within the context of present day online social media libel controversies. It also analyzes three recent federal court rulings where judges had to issue decisions based on Sullivan and Gertz’s actual malice and public figure legal principles. The article concludes that both Sullivan and Gertz are still relevant to how other federal, American courts decide issues related to defamation published in social media.
About the authors
PhD is an Associate Professor of Communication and the Journalism and Citizen Media. Director at Kennesaw State University
PhD is a Professor of Communication and Director of Graduate Studies in Communication at Kennesaw State University
© 2017 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Inhalt
- Table of Contents
- Articles
- Adam Smith’s Lectures on Jurisprudence – Justice, Law, and the Moral Economy
- Undermining Trial by Jury in Russia in Counterterrorism and the Wider Criminal Law
- Notes
- Contemporary United States Law Regarding Online Social Media Libel Standards on the 50th Year Anniversary of Times v Sullivan and 40th Year Anniversary of Gertz v Welch
- Comparing Constitutional Adjudication
- Developments Austria
- Strengthening the Judicial Review System in Austria
- Data Retention: A Violation of the Right to Data Protection
- Data Retention: Directive invalid – Limits imposed by the Principle of Proportionality exceeded
- Data Retention: As to the Admissibility of the Applications − A Reversal of Trend in the Jurisdiction?
- Developments CEE
- Slovak Constitutional Court: Tax and Delegated Legislation from a Constitutional Perspective
- Book Reviews
- Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke, In wessen Namen? Internationale Gerichte in Zeiten globalen Regierens (In Whose Name? A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication), Suhrkamp, 2014, ISBN 9783518296882 (paperback), 383 pp
Articles in the same Issue
- Inhalt
- Table of Contents
- Articles
- Adam Smith’s Lectures on Jurisprudence – Justice, Law, and the Moral Economy
- Undermining Trial by Jury in Russia in Counterterrorism and the Wider Criminal Law
- Notes
- Contemporary United States Law Regarding Online Social Media Libel Standards on the 50th Year Anniversary of Times v Sullivan and 40th Year Anniversary of Gertz v Welch
- Comparing Constitutional Adjudication
- Developments Austria
- Strengthening the Judicial Review System in Austria
- Data Retention: A Violation of the Right to Data Protection
- Data Retention: Directive invalid – Limits imposed by the Principle of Proportionality exceeded
- Data Retention: As to the Admissibility of the Applications − A Reversal of Trend in the Jurisdiction?
- Developments CEE
- Slovak Constitutional Court: Tax and Delegated Legislation from a Constitutional Perspective
- Book Reviews
- Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke, In wessen Namen? Internationale Gerichte in Zeiten globalen Regierens (In Whose Name? A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication), Suhrkamp, 2014, ISBN 9783518296882 (paperback), 383 pp
