I'm not a law fag, but here's some interdasting copypasta of "free press" legal analysis from https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/media/unfetter/press08.htm [probably better sources but this one was in English I could mostly understand.]
"…in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.
And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies."
"For purely private individuals, the test for proving libel is not as difficult. Although Supreme Court rulings such as the Sullivan decision apply everywhere in the United States, most states continue to have their own libel laws that cover private individuals. Usually those laws require that public figures who believe they have been libeled prove that a journalist has been negligent when publishing false information about them. Negligence, like malice, is a legal term that generally means carelessness on the part of a reporter or editor. Because private individuals have more reason than public officials to be left alone in the media, American libel laws recognize that they are entitled to more legal protection against false statements made about them."
Another source to demonstrate the law's murky.
"Sullivan and cases that followed also hold that the First Amendment protects the publication of false information about matters of public concern in a variety of contexts, although with considerably less vigor than it does dissemination of the truth. Even so, public officials and public figures may not recover civil damages for injury to their reputations unless they were the victims of a reckless disregard for truth in the dissemination of a “calculated falsehood.” Indeed, private persons may not collect civil damages for reputational harm caused by falsehoods relating to a matter of public concern unless the publisher’s conduct violates a fault-based standard of care. And although expressions of “opinion” are not always immune from legal sanction, in its 1990 decision in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., the Court held that statements not capable of being proven false, or which reasonable people would not construe as statements of fact at all, but rather as mere “rhetorical hyperbole,” are absolutely protected by the First Amendment."
Things to consider:
What might this mean if the press and others have had the unredacted FISA application via Ali Watkins while they were bashing POTUS over the dirty dossier and Russah, Russah, Russah.
And for we QAnons, should we start a thread just to collect documentation of the untrue and possibly defamatory statements they make about us.
Remember the oddly dressed and displayed "protesters" with the Trump balloon in London who were not given negative labels by most MSM. Compared to the conventionally garbed, not contorted anons at rallys who are now labeled as "deranged" and "bizarre" by some MSM.
For those who want to know about "fault based standard of care"
here is a start: https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/fault-required-for-defamation.html
Again. Not a lawfag. Just activated almonds at 3:00 am.