Libel and Slander lawsuits are examples of disputes between private parties that
do potentially involve 1st Amendment issues.
>>>American and English law had a storied tradition of treating libel as wholly without any free-speech protections. . . . However, in the celebrated case of
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court constitutionalized libel law. . . . The high court reversed, finding that the “law applied by the Alabama courts is constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct.” . . . Defamation, like many other torts, varies from state to state. For example, states recognize different privileges and apply different standards with respect to private-person plaintiffs. Interested parties or practitioners must carefully check the case law of their respective state. Defamation suits can further important interests of those who have been victimized by malicious falsehoods. However, defamation suits can also threaten First Amendment values by chilling the free flow of information. Once again, this is why many states have responded to the threat of meritless defamation suits by passing so-called Anti-SLAPP statutes.<<<
Libel and slander lawsuits can have a chilling effect on free speech. The First Amendment rights of free speech and free press often clash with the interests served by libel laws.
www.mtsu.edu
As a practical matter, courts typically decide 1st Amendment issues by construing a law as not covering the conduct in question rather than striking down the law as being unconstitutional. In other words, the court will say in so many words "If the libel law instituted by the Muckety Mucks over in the state capitol covered the statements in question the law would be unconstitutional, but we conclude that the statements are not covered by this law and plaintiff can therefore eat sh*t" (okay, I made up the "eat sh*t" part, courts almost never actually say that)
Striking down a law as unconstitutional is harsh remedy because it (at least in theory) restricts the ability of the other branches of government going forward in ways that may be unforeseen. Courts often construe a statute narrowly to avoid ruling directly on constitutional issues. Citizens United is of course an example of a decision that struck down a law, and this does indeed happen.
The Supreme Court is not actually itching to strike down laws as being unconstitutional. The vast majority of Supreme Court decisions are more run of the mill cases interpreting a federal statute. Some of these decisions are controversial, but congress can pass a new law if it disagrees with the court.
Here's a list of laws struck down by the Supreme Court on the basis that the laws were unconstitutional:
A table of federal, state, and local laws held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
constitution.congress.gov
Out of the 100-150 or so cases the Supreme Court hears, very few result in a law being struck down on the basis that it is unconstitutional.
