> raised alarm bells in U.S. media circles over the prospect of wealthy individuals using the courts to muzzle the press
Is that really true? What legitimate media outlet thought this was about muzzling the press? Libel has never been allowed.
Is that really true? What legitimate media outlet thought this was about muzzling the press? Libel has never been allowed.
They are like a mob in this case.
You're obviously right, it's libel, full stop. And Hulk Hogan didn't win because he had Thiel money, he won because he was right, and if Gwaker would win, it would be because of money, and that would be something anormal.
That's fairly hyperbolic. The press tends to be defensive due to the long history of attacks it's had to withstand to do their jobs.
They also tend to be fairly expansive in defining what exactly their jobs are, e.g. demanding protections to overlook and ignore criminal behaviour that no other citizens have.
I'm not terribly sympathetic here: journalists should have exactly the same rights and responsibilities that every other citizen has, period.
Libel requires falsehood. That's not the case here.