Your fact-checks will appear here
Landmark United States Supreme Court 1964 ruling
The legal response to sits at the intersection of established precedent, traditional tort and criminal law, and a fast-growing patchwork of state statutes and proposed federal bills; courts have repea...
The law treats public figures differently in defamation disputes: they generally must prove "actual malice"—that a defendant published a false statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard...
Alleging that a public figure — for example, a former president like Donald Trump — is a pedophile immediately triggers the most stringent defamation rules in U.S. law: the accusation is treated as an...
Public figures in the U.S. can sue for defamatory falsehoods, but the law requires them to prove "actual malice" — that the defendant knew a statement was false or recklessly disregarded its truth — a...
The law treats lies to and lies by the government differently because of a mix of criminal statutes that punish private deception directed at public authorities, constitutional free‑speech protections...
Unproven allegations about can be published so long as publishers navigate and : the key legal test for public officials and public figures is whether the publisher acted with “actual malice” — knowle...
The available reporting about a purported v. defamation suit is largely sensational and unverified, so direct documentary linkage to legal precedents is absent in the sources provided . Given that lim...
has been asked to weigh a narrow set of procedural and constitutional arguments in petitions arising from against sitting presidents: whether presidents enjoy immunity or special protections from stat...
The Supreme Court’s “actual malice” rule requires a public-figure plaintiff to prove that a defendant published a false, defamatory statement either knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for...
Defamation (libel and slander) is a recognized limit on free speech: false statements of fact that harm reputation can be actionable under U.S. law, and the First Amendment does not protect all false ...
The core finding is that the Supreme Court did not issue a broad, merits-level ruling resolving Donald Trump’s media‑related legal challenges; instead, at least one high‑profile social‑media case was ...
The core claim from the provided analyses is that the lawsuit implicates —the "actual malice" rule that makes it harder for public officials or public figures to win libel suits (New York Times Co. v....
Spreading false information about public figures can cause significant reputational harm and trigger legal action, but U.S. law sets a high bar for defamation claims by public figures: they must prove...
The Supreme Court has drawn distinct lines on when false statements by public officials or about public matters lose First Amendment protection: the Court has required in defamation suits by public of...
The central legal rule shaping defamation suits by public figures remains the "actual malice" standard from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which requires proof that a defendant knew a statement was f...