I’m working on a law case study and need an explanation to help me study.
This is a case study report evaluating the arguments against NY Times v Sullivan by Senior Judge Silberman and Justice Thomas, and address the Wall Street journal editorialâ€™s board as well. The paper should be 1,300-1,800 words. It must contain footnotes to at least 10 sources, and must make an argument about whether NY Times v Sullivan should continue to be the law of the land.
Paper should be double spaced, 12 point font, footnote can be any style (professor just needs to be able to find the source if it is longer than a news article. Page where the citation is taken from)
Format of paper should be as following (5 parts) 1. Introduction (no more than a couple paragraphs. Introduce paper, itâ€™s main arguments, and where you will come down. You should state whether you are going to argue that NYT V Sullivan should be overturned and why or why it shouldnâ€™t be). 2.Silbermanâ€™s argument: State here Silberman argument against NYT v Sullivan and evaluate it against your own understanding of the law) 3. Justice Thomasâ€™s argument: 4. The Wall Street journal: in a few paragraphs, explain the boards arguments and assess it. Where is it weak or strong? Is it persuasive? 5.Conclusion: now that you have stated, rebutted or supported, or perhaps agreed in part or disagreed in part, begin careful to anchor in your understanding of the law and what youâ€™ve read. Tell me what you think the future of libel law should look like, and by that, tell me what rules should be for media for when they make mistakes about public officials and other public figures. Under what circumstances should publishers be made to pay damages? Should the rules stay the same? Are there changes in the law that should be made? In the conclusion explain what you think the impact of the new rules – or of keeping the old rules – will have on the freedom of the press and the democracy many believe it supports