[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Jeff Davies, the Energy OG [@EnergyCredit1](/creator/twitter/EnergyCredit1) on x 37.7K followers Created: 2025-07-18 23:38:51 UTC Supreme Court disagrees with you. In libel suits involving public officials, the Supreme Court has established that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the defendant acted with "actual malice," meaning the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This burden was established in the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The court ruled that public officials must meet this higher standard to protect free speech and robust public debate XX engagements  **Related Topics** [york times](/topic/york-times) [supreme](/topic/supreme) [og](/topic/og) [coins energy](/topic/coins-energy) [$nyt](/topic/$nyt) [Post Link](https://x.com/EnergyCredit1/status/1946354007028511125)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Jeff Davies, the Energy OG @EnergyCredit1 on x 37.7K followers
Created: 2025-07-18 23:38:51 UTC
Supreme Court disagrees with you.
In libel suits involving public officials, the Supreme Court has established that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the defendant acted with "actual malice," meaning the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This burden was established in the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The court ruled that public officials must meet this higher standard to protect free speech and robust public debate
XX engagements
Related Topics york times supreme og coins energy $nyt