Yeah, it doesn't get a lot of play, but Trump's statements on libel law are almost as terrifying as his racist remarks or his comments inciting violence. Of course, since NYT v. Sullivan was decided on constitutional grounds (1st amendment), any attempt to weaken its protections through legislative or executive action…

No, the civil jury found specific intent (to be precise, they found that O.J. acted with "opression and malice,")It's just that the standard of proof (preponderance of evidence) is much lower in a wrongful death suit than in a murder trial (proof beyond a reasonable doubt.) I'm sure you mean well, but you're slinging…

Also this show is a fictionalized account, the sort of thing that is given an incredible amount of leeway by American courts. So even if the actual malice standard didn't apply here (and it 100% does), there's not a chance that a libel claim would succeed.

Also this show is a fictionalized account, the sort of thing that is given an incredible amount of leeway by American courts. So even if the actual malice standard didn't apply here (and it 100% does), there's not a chance that a libel claim would succeed.

Nooooooo no no no no no this is not at all how American defamation law works. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the supreme court established the "actual malice" standard for defamation of public officials— in order to succeed when claiming slander/libel of a public official, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant…