Syed argues that changing Sullivan would not solve misinformation
Nabiha SyedMedia lawyer and then-chief executive of The Markup writing in her own name
Syed argues that weakening actual malice would not address much online misinformation and could harm journalists.
“But meaningfully addressing those challenges will have very little to do with Sullivan’s actual malice standard.”
Analysis
Where this statement fits
Should the Supreme Court keep New York Times v. Sullivan's rule and its public-figure extensions?
New York Times v. Sullivan requires public officials suing over official conduct to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. Later decisions extend that requirement to public figures. Thomas and Gorsuch urge reconsideration, particularly of those extensions. Defenders argue that weakening the rule would deter legitimate criticism without solving misinformation.
Source and context
Analysis
About this source
In this 2021 essay, Nabiha Syed disputes the argument that weakening actual malice would solve online misinformation. She separates reputational injury from other harmful falsehoods. No exact publication day is assigned here.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Syed responds to Thomas and Gorsuch's concerns about falsehoods and the modern media environment.
After the quotation
She distinguishes reputational falsehoods covered by defamation law from other misinformation and argues for remedies aimed at amplification.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The fixed reference point is keeping Sullivan's protections. Syed defends keeping them. Her argument for other misinformation remedies does not make that support conditional.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseThomas calls for reconsidering actual malice for public figures
“I and others have thus called for reconsideration of the actual-malice ... standard for public figures.”Read statement
Barbas warns that overruling Sullivan could revive political libel suits
“If New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and related cases are overruled, libel suits could again become weapons of blatant political suppression.”Read statement
LoCicero says she is a fan of Sullivan
“I'm a fan of New York Times versus Sullivan”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Syed argues that changing Sullivan would not solve misinformation
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6816-syed-argues-that-weakening-actual-malice-would-not
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Syed argues that changing Sullivan would not solve misinformation". First published: 2026-10-25. Last updated: 2026-10-25. https://disputeindex.com/events/6816-syed-argues-that-weakening-actual-malice-would-not