“ .... While we pay all due obedience to men in authority, we ought at the same time to be upon our guard against power wherever we apprehend that it may affect ourselves or our fellow subjects....” (Andrew Hamilton, Aug 4, 1735) .
These were the sentiments of Andrew Hamilton, an American lawyer in support of freedom of the press during the trial of John Peter Zenger. Unlike the era in which United States used English laws, the crime of seditious no longer exists. However, government officials can still file libel-related lawsuits against journalists if they feel that reports published about them hold significant malice. Libel cases today heavily rely on the presence of "actual malice." The John Peter Zenger case led to the enactment of the First Amendment, which conveniently assures the U.S citizens of their freedom of expression. Actual malice in the context of freedom of press delineates the intention of the journalist’s publication any aspects of ill will.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Today, derived from the First and Fourth Amendments, libel lawsuits against journalists have gained a significant milestone both in defense and details. The trial of John Peter Zenger marked the beginning of an era for the journey of freedom of the press that has become profound in today’s journalism setting. In the later years, the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan, marked a significant turn for freedom of the press as the court decided that libel cases could only be based upon the presence of "actual malice." Actual malice would mean that the libelous publication in question is advanced "with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Journalists today are not required to prove the truth in the statements, as this has been shown to limit the vigor and extensity of public debates. Freedom of press, has however, been promoted, allowing reporters to create news anywhere except in some court cases.
