the article is here; here is the Introduction:
Coordinated campaigns of falsehoods are poisoning public discourse. Amid a torrent of conspiracy theories and lies on social media, on issues as central to the nation's well-being as elections and public health, academics and legal scholars are turning their attention to the causes of this misinformation crisis. and possible solutions.
Judge Neil Gorsuch recently suggested that, in response to this challenge, the US Supreme Court should take a case for reconsideration. New York Times vs. Sullivan, the fundamental First Amendment precedent in libel law. An important premise of Judge Gorsuch's critique of Sullivan it is that the changing dynamics of social media, and the misinformation crisis that has accompanied them, threaten the nation's democracy. He argues that this changed terrain may require less stringent constitutional protections in defamation actions. This chapter explores and challenges that criticism. Justice Gorsuch is correct that rampant disinformation on social media poses a serious risk to our political and social stability, but there is a troubling disconnect between the anti-disinformation and democracy concerns he articulates and the doctrinal revisions he considers. When the interrelationships between disinformation, defamation and democracy are questioned -and especially, when they are located within the constitutional value of the press function that served as a backdrop to Sullivanโit becomes clear that when unrolling the Sullivan the doctrine would not be a productive tool to remedy the problem of rampant lying on social media. In fact, doing so carries the very real risk of exacerbating the problem. abandoning the Sullivan The line of protections would hurt valued speakers of the press who actively prioritize reliable newsgathering and corrective reporting, and would do so without a significant reward for solving the problem of online misinformation that appears to be driving this proposed reconsideration.
This query matters. Sullivan It's not exclusively a press freedom case, but at this critical time, it's a centerpiece of protection for some core functions of the press (performed by both legacy and non-legacy media) that are crucial to healthy public discourse. TO Sullivan scaleback hurts those entities that are incentivized to get the right information, invest in careful newsgathering, and engage in major investigative journalism that exposes those selling disinformation. At a time of dwindling newsroom and press litigation resources and a greater willingness of public people to weaponize libel as a tool to silence and deter critics, the risks of self-censorship expressed by unanimous opinion Sullivan cut are especially serious.
Representative democracy needs the function of the press to survive and flourish. There are many reasons to believe that a reversal of Sullivan it would aggravate rather than alleviate the problem of misinformation and further endanger fragile democracy.
