JUDGES DO GET IT WRONG: No matter how you feel about these particular media defendants, the judge here committed reversible error in holding that saying in good faith but erroneously that a man convicted of a misdemeanor is a “felon” is a substantial enough falsity for a libel case to stand. Mind you, the complaining party makes a valid observation:

In his complaint, Blankenship explains, “We live in an age of weaponized defamation where lies can be repeated in more ways at more times in more places with more speed than anyone could possibly have imagined even five years ago.”

But that isn’t enough. The degree of harm is not relevant to the question of scienter or fault. If publishers are required to be 100% accurate in describing legal pleadings or face bankrupting libel suits, then who would risk reporting any legal news? That, my friends, is the genius of our Founding Fathers’ design of the First Amendment.

“Sometimes false speech must be protected in order to provide breathing space for other expression.”