From the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard lawsuit to the families of Sandy Hook victims suing far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, defamation lawsuits seem to be constantly in the news. So what exactly is defamation law? Defamation law gives people an avenue to protect their reputations. Two main areas of defamation law include libel; written statements, and slander; spoken statements. Defamation law varies from state to state, but generally, there are four elements needed to prove one has been defamed: a false statement appearing to be fact, a publication or communication of that statement to a third person, negligence on the publisher바카라 게임 웹사이트�s part and damages or harm caused to the victim바카라 게임 웹사이트�s reputation.Landmark court cases Defamation law as we know it today is built upon several court cases that create precedent. In the 1964 court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that public officials have to prove the false and defaming statements were made with 바카라 게임 웹사이트�actual malice바카라 게임 웹사이트� 바카라 게임 웹사이트� meaning the statement was made with the knowledge it was false, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Basically, public officials or figures are held to a higher standard to prove they were defamed because they have to further prove the statements were deliberately published incorrectly, whereas private individuals just have to prove negligence.In the 1974 court case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that private individuals have higher protections than public figures, meaning that private individuals only have to prove negligence 바카라 게임 웹사이트� someone carelessly publishing a mistake.For example, a news organization could run a story about someone being arrested for a crime and they named the wrong person by writing a typo, it바카라 게임 웹사이트�s considered negligence.Can defamation law protect against misinformation? With social media at our fingertips, anyone can post instantly. Defamation law can sometimes be used to crack down on misinformation on the internet, as long as the misinformation campaign targets identifiable private individuals or corporations.One example is far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones being ordered to pay around $1.5 billion dollars in damages to the families of the Sandy Hook victims after he repeatedly broadcasted on his show "Infowars" lies claiming the mass shooting didn바카라 게임 웹사이트�t happen, which was traumatic for the victim바카라 게임 웹사이트�s families. Increase in defamation lawsuits on social mediaAccording to Indiana University Media Professor Anthony Fargo, defamation law has not changed much in the internet era because libel law can be applied to any medium. However, he바카라 게임 웹사이트�s noticed an increase in lawsuits involving social media.바카라 게임 웹사이트�What we have seen is a lot of lawsuits filed against Twitter or Twitter users or other social media users, particularly when somebody creates a parody site about a politician that makes fun of them,바카라 게임 웹사이트� Fargo said. He also notices these kinds of lawsuits will often get dismissed early 바카라 게임 웹사이트� partly because of the protections in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Section 230 gives interactive service providers, like Twitter and Facebook, immunity from being sued for things their users do.바카라 게임 웹사이트�And partly because the lawsuits are oftentimes going after people who are engaging in what courts call 바카라 게임 웹사이트�parody,바카라 게임 웹사이트� or 바카라 게임 웹사이트�rhetorical hyperbole바카라 게임 웹사이트� where they're using exaggerated language to poke at a politician, which is not liable, necessarily. In fact, it's perfectly legal to do that,바카라 게임 웹사이트� Fargo said. Potential changes in defamation law Aside from Twitter parody accounts, Fargo said he's noticed a push of people wanting to either get rid of or amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. 바카라 게임 웹사이트�The concern is that if you do too much of a major renovation of Section 230, it바카라 게임 웹사이트�s going to remove a lot of protections that internet service providers have counted on since the beginning, which will probably radically change the way that we use the internet,바카라 게임 웹사이트� Fargo said.Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have also previously urged the rest of the justices to revisit the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision; however, the Supreme Court declined to revisit the landmark case. 바카라 게임 웹사이트�Justice Thomas has argued that a big problem with Sullivan was that it was badly decided in the beginning because it was outside of what the Constitution actually required for in terms of protecting publishers from libel suits,바카라 게임 웹사이트� Fargo said. 바카라 게임 웹사이트�Justice Gorsuch has argued that it has become outdated, in part because all of the changes and how quickly and how much content we have that moves through the internet has outpaced the snail pace at which publication happened by comparison when Sullivan was decided in 1964.바카라 게임 웹사이트�Fargo says he believes he will see more and more cases come up questioning whether internet service providers are immune from being sued.