I was speaking specifically about libel laws. In the US you need to prove the libel. In the UK the burden of proof is on the defense instead.
“The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”.”
And the case you are talking about was Trump vs the NFL when he owned the USFL New Jersey Generals and was an antitrust case. Trump argued the NFL was a monopoly.
He won the case but was awarded $1
There is an ESPN 60 for 60 about it called “small potatoes”
mark
You are saying the same thing I am. The Supremes changed the law to require “malice” or reckless disregard of the truth, by the press against a public person. That is a lot harder to prove. You still have to prove the falsity of a statement of fact as well. I would get rid of the malice requirement, it is an invention of the court, and gives too much power to our increasingly irresponsible press.
As to the burden of proof, it is a longstanding principle of American jurisprudence, which derives from English law, so I don’t know why they have changed it, that the plaintiff has the burden of proof in a civil case. It is not a big burden; it just means that the evidence favors the plaintiff by a scintilla. It also affects who has the burden of producing evidence first; the plaintiff has to, and then the defense rebuts. I don’t have a problem with leaving that as it is; If you want to sue someone, you need to have the evidence in your favor.