Steve Wynn, the former casino mogul, lost a legal battle in his defamation case against The Associated Press (AP) and one of its reporters.
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled against Wynn, citing protections for the press under the state’s anti-SLAPP law.
But the case raises serious concerns about media accountability and whether public figures can ever get justice when false accusations ruin their reputations.
What’s the Case About?
Back in 2018, The Associated Press published a story about Steve Wynn based on a police report.
The article claimed Wynn had raped a woman in the 1970s, and that she later gave birth to his child.
But there was a problem—the allegations were, in the court’s own words, “clearly fanciful or delusional.”
One of the accusers even described giving birth in a gas station bathroom to a baby she called a “purple doll.”
Despite the absurdity of these claims, AP rushed to publish the story without checking the facts, reaching out to Wynn for comment, or doing any real investigation.
The article painted a damning picture of Wynn, linking him to sexual misconduct allegations that had already cost him his job at Wynn Resorts.
Wynn Fights Back, But Hits a Wall
Wynn sued for defamation, arguing that the AP knowingly spread falsehoods.
But under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP laws, public figures like Wynn must prove that a news organization acted with “actual malice.”
That means Wynn had to show that the AP knew the claims were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
The court ruled that he didn’t meet that high bar.
Wynn’s legal team argued that anti-SLAPP laws—meant to protect free speech—shouldn’t be used as a shield for reckless journalism. They pointed out that the court had already determined the accusations against Wynn were false and defamatory.
But because of the legal standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, proving “actual malice” is nearly impossible for public figures.
A System Rigged Against the Accused?
Conservatives have long raised concerns that today’s media operates with little accountability.
Anti-SLAPP laws were supposed to protect ordinary people from being sued for expressing their opinions. But critics say they’ve been twisted into a free pass for powerful media outlets to smear individuals without consequences.
Justice Clarence Thomas has previously called for revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan, arguing that it has given the press too much protection and makes it nearly impossible for defamed individuals to fight back.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia also questioned the ruling’s fairness, noting that public figures shouldn’t have fewer rights to defend their reputations than ordinary citizens.
What Critics Say
Of course, media advocates argue that strong protections against defamation lawsuits are necessary to preserve freedom of the press.
Liberal MSNBC personality Stephanie Ruhle was incredulous, tweeting about the lawsuit, “I’m sorry – WHAT?” While liberal Las Vegas blogger Jon Ralston characterized Wynn’s legal move as an effort to “gut a key press freedom.”
Opponents claim that if Wynn had won, it could have led to more lawsuits against journalists, making it harder to report on powerful figures.
The AP defended its reporting, saying the police report was a legitimate public document and that it was simply informing the public.
But that argument ignores a key fact: just because something is in a police report doesn’t mean it’s true.
Journalists are supposed to verify their sources, not just publish accusations without question.
What’s Next?
Wynn is now taking his fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan or at least limit how it applies to public figures like him.
If the Court agrees to hear the case, it could have major implications for media accountability and defamation law in the United States.
For now, the ruling stands as a reminder of the uphill battle faced by anyone trying to hold the media responsible for spreading false information. And in an era where fake news spreads faster than ever, that should concern us all.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
