What is the current state of the law on repressing defamatory statements in the media?

The overriding significance of these precepts was emphasized in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 279--280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, in which it was held that a public official may not recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice. In its opinion, the court characterized as a 'profound national commitment' the principle that debate on public issues must be 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.' (376 U.S. at p. 270, 84 S.Ct. at p. 721.) These authorities leave no doubt that the truth or falsity of a statement on a public issue is irrelevant to the question whether it should be repressed in advance of publication.