In a case of first impression, Fort Worth, Texas’ 2nd Court of Appeals recently ruled that the “actual malice” standard – which holds news organizations liable if they publish information that is knowingly false about a public official – can be applied to works of satire some readers believe to be true. The May 2 decision in New Times Inc.v. Isaacks is a rare win for libel plaintiffs. But the case troubles media lawyers who believe the decision undermines the freedom of the press under the First Amendment – rights that permit criticism of public officials through satire.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer in the case says the decision draws a clear line: The media should be held accountable for works of satire that aren’t clearly labeled and that readers believe is true.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
