Should the Press Be Restrained? Re-examining Libel Laws episode artwork

EPISODE · Oct 3, 2019 · 1H 4M

Should the Press Be Restrained? Re-examining Libel Laws

from Heard at Heritage · host The Heritage Foundation

America’s Founders understood the press as both a necessary component of republican government and a potential threat to political liberty. They counted on libel laws to restrain the press’s natural excesses. But the Supreme Court dramatically changed the nature of libel law in its landmark 1964 decision, New York Times v. Sullivan. How has this ruling changed the character of America’s press, and what have been long term consequences of this ruling? Should this decision be revisited? Please join us as our panel of experts consider whether stronger libel laws against the press should be revived. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Episode metadata supplied by the publisher feed · Published Oct 3, 2019

Embed this episode

Ready to play

Should the Press Be Restrained? Re-examining Libel Laws

0:00 1:04:37

No transcript for this episode yet

We transcribe on demand. Request one and we'll notify you when it's ready — usually under 10 minutes.

No similar episodes found.

No similar podcasts found.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is this episode of Heard at Heritage?

This episode is 1 hour and 4 minutes long.

When was this Heard at Heritage episode published?

This episode was published on October 3, 2019.

Can I download this Heard at Heritage episode?

Yes. Use the download control on the episode player to save the publisher-provided media file.
URL copied to clipboard!