Justice Thomas wants the Supreme Court to revisit libel protections to make it easier for public figures to sue media organizations

• The Supreme Court should revisit libel protections.

• The standard for defamation could be changed.

• The court decided against taking on a defamation case.

Justice Clarence Thomas urged the Supreme Court to revisit libel protections set by the New York Times Co.

Thomas dissented from the Court's decision not to take on a defamation case between a Christian media group and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Thomas said he would allow certiorari to revisit the "actual malice" standard. The New York Times and its offspring have allowed media organizations to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.

According to Thomas, Coral Ridge was placed on an "interactive, online "Hate Map" because of its classification.

Coral Ridge accused the SPLC of defaming it because Amazon wouldn't allow it to participate in donation programs. A federal appeals court agreed with the dismissal of the suit and said that Coral Ridge couldn't prove that the SPLC acted with malice.

The precedent set by the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan requires public figures to prove that the defendants acted with malice.

Thomas said that Coral Ridge had to prove multiple elements in order to counter the SPLC's argument that it had First Amendment rights.

The standard for defamation could be changed to make it easier for public figures to file lawsuits.

Business Insider has an article on it.