Casino Mogul Wynn Asks Supreme Court to Revisit Times v. Sullivan Defamation Rule

Casino mogul Steve Wynn has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the landmark defamation case New York Times v. Sullivan, which established the actual malice standard for public officials suing for defamation. Wynn's attorneys argue that the current standard is too restrictive and that states should be allowed to apply their own defamation laws. This move has raised concerns about the potential impact on press freedom and the casino industry's reputation.

Wynn, the former CEO of Wynn Resorts, is seeking to weaken the protections surrounding freedom of the press, which were strengthened by the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling in 1964. The ruling limited the ability of public officials to sue for defamation, requiring them to prove that the offending statement was made with "actual malice" – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Wynn's attorneys argue that this standard is too high and that states should be allowed to apply their own defamation laws, which could be more favorable to public officials.

The potential weakening of the Times v. Sullivan ruling could have significant implications for the casino industry's reputation and public perception, particularly in light of Wynn's past controversies. The Times v. Sullivan ruling established the actual malice standard for public officials suing for defamation, which has been a crucial protection for the press and free speech. If this standard is weakened, it could lead to an increase in lawsuits against media outlets and individuals who criticize or report on the casino industry, potentially chilling free speech and creating a more hostile environment for investigative journalism.

For Wynn Resorts, the company has faced numerous controversies in the past, including allegations of sexual misconduct by its founder, Steve Wynn. If the Times v. Sullivan ruling is weakened, it could make it easier for public officials or individuals to sue the company for defamation, even if the allegations are true or based on legitimate investigative reporting. This could damage the company's reputation and create a more hostile environment for investigative journalism, potentially leading to a decline in public trust and support for the casino industry as a whole.

In conclusion, Wynn's petition to the Supreme Court to revisit the Times v. Sullivan ruling could have significant implications for the casino industry's reputation and public perception, particularly in light of Wynn's past controversies. It is crucial for the company to monitor the situation closely and consider the potential risks and challenges that may arise. Investors in the entertainment and hospitality sectors should also be aware of the potential impact on their investments and adapt their strategies accordingly.