The article compares and contrasts the defamation law of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR) with that of the United States, with particular reference to NY Times v. Sullivan. It is suggested that american courts should themselves weigh and evalue the facts of defamation (as the NYTimes ct did); and also consider whether justification should be demanded for opinion statements, free attorney appointments for public interest defendants in defamation cases, and consideration given to a sliding scale of defamatory review for public officials who hold non-elected, lower rank positions.