Paper by David Andrew Logan: “New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is an iconic decision, foundational to modern First Amendment theory, and in a string of follow-on decisions the Court firmly grounded free speech theory and practice in the need to protect democratic discourse. To do this the Court provided broad and deep protections to the publishers of falsehoods. This article recognizes that New York Times and its progeny made sense in the “public square” of an earlier era, but the justices could never have foreseen the dramatic changes in technology and the media environment in the years since, nor predict that by making defamation cases virtually impossible to win they were harming, rather than helping self-government. In part because of New York Times, the First Amendment has been weaponized, frustrating a basic requirement of a healthy democracy: the development of a set of broadly agreed-upon facts. Instead, we are subject to waves of falsehoods that swamp the ability of citizens to effectively self-govern. As a result, and despite its iconic status, New York Times needs to be reexamined and retooled to better serve our democracy….(More)”
How to contribute:
Did you come across – or create – a compelling project/report/book/app at the leading edge of innovation in governance?
Share it with us at info@thelivinglib.org so that we can add it to the Collection!
About the Curator
Get the latest news right in you inbox
Subscribe to curated findings and actionable knowledge from The Living Library, delivered to your inbox every Friday
Related articles
democracy
Shrinking Civic Space, Digital Funding, and Legitimacy in a Post-Truth Era
Posted in July 22, 2025 by Stefaan Verhulst
democracy
Democratic innovation for change: A participatory corrective to deliberative hegemony
Posted in July 21, 2025 by Stefaan Verhulst
democracy
Artificial Democracy: The Impact of Big Data on Politics, Policy, and Polity
Posted in July 8, 2025 by Stefaan Verhulst