Summary

In an era where truth battles conspiracy, the Supreme Court wisely refused to entertain casino magnate Steve Wynn's attempt to dismantle journalists' safeguard against libel suits. Wynn's lawsuit against The Associated Press sought to challenge the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, which fortifies free press by demanding a higher proof of malice in libel cases involving public figures. By rejecting this appeal, the Court reaffirms the essential, if occasionally inconvenient, role of the Fourth Estate.

Takeaways

• The Supreme Court turned down Steve Wynn's libel case appeal.
• Wynn wanted to challenge the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling.
• The ruling protects journalists from frivolous libel suits by demanding proof of malice.
• The decision supports a free and critical press.
• This denial signals continued judicial support for media freedoms.

Discuss

How does maintaining the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent protect democracy? What are the potential consequences of weakening press protections in libel cases?

Read more