New York Times Co. V. Sullivan

...

Constitutional scholar Lee Epstein had pointed out that there was a key unaddressed issue involved in this case. How can a public figure prove there was actual malice? As a matter of fact, it is very hard to prove that there is actual malice involved when a public figure wishes to initiate a lawsuit against a media. In most cases, it was impossible to do so. For many public figures, when there is a criticism against them, it actually did damage to their reputation. Since they cannot prove that there is actual malice involved in the case, they lost the chance to obtain financial compensation and other kinds of compensation such as an apology. Sometimes it was very obvious that when the media published something there was actual malice. But when the court ask the plaintiff to prove the actual malice, it becomes so difficult to do. Therefore, even the public figure knows that the media is “playing around” for purpose, but they can never prove the actual malice in the lawsuit.

Freedom of speech and freedom to publish are basic human rights. They certainly should have the protection of the Constitution. Because of this, every time legislation tries to revise the law, they never want to harm the freedom of press. Even providing law protection for a person’s reputation is important, but once the case is involved with freedom of the press, the court is more likely to protect the media. The legislation certainly should improve the law and try to rebalance the scale. The legislation should recognize the public’s wish which is that legislation should improve the law, in order to set a limit for the media or even punish them when they publish an untrue report.

...