As reported by The Times of London, five law lords unanimously ruled
in favor of a public - interest defense that more closely resembles the «actual malice» standard applied
in U.S.
libel cases involving public
officials and public figures.
Nor can I discern
in those First Amendment considerations that led us to restrict the States» powers to regulate defamation of public
officials any additional interest that is not served by the actual malice rule of New York Times, supra, but is substantially promoted by utilizing this Court as the ultimate arbiter of factual disputes
in those
libel cases where no unusual factors, such as allegations of harassment or the existence of a jury verdict resting on erroneous instructions, cf. New York Times, supra, are present.