The First Amendment must serve as a shield to protect journalists and the media, because a free press is vital to the type of open democracy we maintain. The First Amendment must protect journalists if they write or speak about public figures or public matters. The leading constitutional requirement announced by the Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is that public figures (and public officials) must show “actual malice” because they can prevail in a defamation suit only if they can show “actual malice” or reckless disregard for the truth (Anderson, 2006). The First Amendment serves as a shield to allow expression, which is essential to our democracy. However, it is not to be assumed that the First Amendment guarantees constitutional immunity to all reporting. If a media organization makes a provably false statement about a private individual, constitutional immunity is less easy to sustain. If falsity can be proven and there is evidence of media malice or negligence in certain instances, then the defamation lawsuit can proceed. There is no logic to offering constitutional immunity for reckless fabrication or purposeful falsehoods.
When it comes to “weaponized defamation” lawsuits, the problem is troubling. These lawsuits involve cases brought not primarily to repair real damage to a reputation, but to threaten, punish, or silence critics and journalists. As Levi explains, defamation law can easily become an expensive burden (Levi, 2017). This means that even a mere threat of litigation can prevent news stories from being published. A lawsuit brought as a weapon against a critic or journalist, even if it is not particularly valid, can have a chilling effect on journalism. This is problematic because it prevents the public from becoming informed. Plaintiffs in cases like these must consider that there are several valid First Amendment defenses to a defamation claim that a journalist can raise. For instance, the defendant can argue that the subject issue is of public concern and therefore receives more constitutional protection. The journalist may also raise the argument that the plaintiff is a public figure and, hence, must show actual malice, as they either knew the information to be false or had a reckless disregard for the truth. The defendant can also argue that they expressed their opinion, rather than stating facts, or that they relied on credible information.
Do anti-SLAPP laws offer assistance? Yes! The purpose of anti-SLAPP laws is to prevent frivolous lawsuits, with the strategic goal of deterring individuals from engaging in litigation over public matters. According to the guide presented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, anti-SLAPP laws facilitate the early dismissal of lawsuits, recovery of attorneys' fees, and tip the scales against frivolous lawsuits (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2025). These laws can be especially crucial to newspapers and media publications because they can ease the fear of a financially expensive lawsuit for defamation that is not always likely to succeed. Not all lawsuits for defamation can be deemed invalid. This is because plaintiffs with valid reputation damages still have a legal remedy available to them. However, anti-SLAPP laws can be seen as reinforcing the shield aspect of the First Amendment, as they prevent the abuse of the law.
In short, while the First Amendment serves as a shield for journalism when truth and public interests intersect, it is not immune to challenge on matters of intentional or reckless misinformation. Anti-SLAPP laws play a critical role in maintaining the shield through their procedures to prevent litigation that is not focused on repairing harm to reputation but rather suppressing disagreements.
Anderson, D. (2006). RETHINKING DEFAMATION. https://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/48-4/48arizlrev1047.pdf
Levi, L. (2017). The Weaponized Lawsuit Against the Media: Litigation Funding as a New Threat to Journalism. https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=fac_articles
Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press. (2025, July 31). Understanding Anti-SLAPP Laws | The Reporters Committee. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/