Big Tech’s defense of its liability shield for content could become a two-front war.
Edge providers already face bipartisan pushback on their Sec. 230 shield from moderation of most third-party content. Now however, two top jurists, both Supreme Court justices, have raised the issue of rethinking the Times vs. Sullivan decision requirement that speech relating to public officials has to show actual malice to be actionably defamatory.
Dissenting from the Court’s decision not to hear a relevant challenge to Times v. Sullivan, Justice Clarence Thomas said it was definitely time to take a second look at the actual malice standard. “Instead of continuing to insulate those who perpetrate lies from traditional remedies like libel suits, we should give them only the protection the First Amendment requires,” Thomas wrote. » Read More