Abstract
The interpretation of the New York Times actual malice standard by the Supreme Court of the United States in Masson v. New Yorker Magazine has been shaping the legal landscape in which narrative journalism is practiced for more than a decade. In nineteen of the twenty-one federal court and state high court defamation cases citing Masson that have involved substantive issues relevant to narrative journalism, the case contributed to clear victories for defendants. As in Masson itself, disputed questions of material fact sent the remaining two cases to juries for resolution. Overall, Masson has been used consistently to uphold First Amendment protections for writers.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
