Peter Brimelow v. The New York Times Company

Whether the Sullivan Malice rule should be abandoned, especially where it serves to spare government policy from criticism and shelters a powerful media entity which deliberately acted to narrow debate – in favor of governmental policy – on topics of vital public importance, such as race, intelligence, and crime? Whether Brimelow appropriately pleaded Sullivan Malice where he showed a cumulative and repeating pattern that included wilful disregard of well established scientific evidence, failure to seek corroboration from obvious sources, reliance upon a highly questionable source with a reputation for persistent inaccuracies, ill will, and the continued violation of several of the New York Times’s own journalistic standards?