{"id":1343,"date":"2026-08-06T06:37:57","date_gmt":"2026-08-06T06:37:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343"},"modified":"2026-08-06T06:37:57","modified_gmt":"2026-08-06T06:37:57","slug":"why-justices-thomas-and-gorsuch-want-to-revisit-new-york-times-v-sullivan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343","title":{"rendered":"Why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Want to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan<\/i>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

J<\/span>ustice Clarence Thomas has a few items remaining on his originalist to-do list. Moving up the list with each passing term is revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan<\/em> and, presumably, purging the \u201cactual malice\u201d standard the Court conjured in 1964. Justice Gorsuch is up for the challenge, but they need to convince two more of their colleagues to hear a case.<\/p>\n

Read more The Spectacle Ep. 449: Will Fauci\u2019s Fifth Cost Him a Contempt of Congress?<\/a><\/p>\n

At the end of the most recent term, Gorsuch joined Thomas\u2019 dissent to the Court\u2019s denial of certiorari in . The short opinion directs the Court to Thomas\u2019 dissent in 2021 in . That, in turn, builds on Thomas\u2019 concurrence in the denial of cert in two years earlier. In McKee<\/em>, Thomas explains \u201cwhy, in an appropriate case, we should reconsider the precedents that require courts\u201d to determine if a plaintiff is a \u201climited-purpose public figure.\u201d That is, Sullivan<\/em> and its progeny.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The originalist case for overturning \u2018New York Times v. Sullivan\u2019 is strong and coherent.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

The bottom line for Thomas, as he states in Berisha<\/em> and re-ups in Dershowitz<\/em>, is that the actual malice standard for public figures \u201cbears \u2018no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

A truly unprecedented standard like actual malice arose from the Court seeing a problem where its predecessors did not.<\/p>\n

For nearly 200 years, libel law and the freedom of the press co-existed peacefully, each in their own domain.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo Liberty to Libel: The Constitutional Case against New York Times v. Sullivan<\/em>,\u201d by University of Nebraska\u2013Omaha political science professor Carson Holloway, walks through the cases and commentaries that spanned libel law and laws protecting the freedom of the press, from the first decades of the Republic up through Sullivan<\/em> to the present. The Supreme Court\u2019s and state courts\u2019 rulings were consistent and unequivocal until 1964.<\/p>\n

Justice Joseph Story, for example, wrote in 1833 that the idea that the First Amendment grants someone \u201can absolute right to speak, or write, or print\u201d whatever they wished, without risk of consequence, was \u201ca supposition too wild to be indulged by any rational man.\u201d For if that was the case, \u201cevery citizen [would have] a right to destroy, at his pleasure, the reputation, the peace, the property, and even the personal safety of every other citizen.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Washington Post v. Chaloner<\/em> (1919), the Supreme Court wrote that because of \u201cthe wide circulation of present-day newspapers and their power for doing injury to reputation \u2026 the ancient doctrine \u2018Whatever a man publishes he publishes at his peril\u2019 should be strictly enforced.\u201d<\/p>\n

Just over a decade before Sullivan<\/em>, in Beauharnais v. Illinois <\/em>(1951), the Court could still breezily and without controversy dismiss an argument by stating that \u201cLibelous utterances not being within the area of constitutionally protected speech.\u201d<\/p>\n

Holloway writes that Sullivan<\/em> \u201csignaled [the Court\u2019s] departure from \u2014 not to say its outright disdain for \u2014 this long-established understanding\u201d that \u201clibel suits raise no constitutional problems.\u201d The Sullivan<\/em> Court thrust what it saw as the indirect consequences of libel laws \u2014 their potential chilling effect on true statements in the public interest \u2014 into \u201cthe domain of the First Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Speaking with Holloway about why the Court in Sullivan<\/em> overwrote this abundance of precedent, he identifies three cultural trends that were upstream of law and politics.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Founders established a republic or a democracy. But the country that produced them, England, had what Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America<\/em> called an aristocratic social state. Aristocracies put a premium on honor and reputation, and don\u2019t tolerate any kind of stain to the reputation.\u201d<\/p>\n

As I often remind people, Alexander Hamilton died in a duel over an affront to reputation.<\/p>\n

\u201cHonor culture was still very powerful at the time of the founding,\u201d Holloway continues.<\/p>\n

\n

Gentlemen would disagree and argue with the policies or the ideas that were being put forward. But they would never suggest that anything was done with an improper motive \u2014 that would be unworthy of themselves and whoever they were speaking of.<\/p>\n

Read more What the Fauci Diaries Reveal About America\u2019s COVID Response<\/a><\/p>\n

The more democracy progresses, the more that sense of honor tends to recede, and reputation loses some of its force.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Likewise, notions of Christian morality that were more prevalent at the Founding than they were in the mid-20th century also protected reputation.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Christian principle of interpretive charity means you would always interpret someone\u2019s behavior \u2014 and, in this case, speak of it \u2014 in the best way possible. That applied not just at the level of libel and slander, but also detraction: saying something bad about somebody, even if it is true.\u201d<\/p>\n

As late as 1931, the Supreme Court affirmed an element of libel law that would have been familiar to Blackstone but is anathema to contemporary approaches. The Court upheld in Near v. Minnesota<\/em> that the First Amendment protects a true statement only if it \u201cwas published with good motives and justifiable ends.\u201d<\/p>\n

Interpretive charity can still be found in some extant standards. \u201cNo innocent construction\u201d is an element of defamation law in many states. A statement is potentially defamatory if there is \u201cno innocent construction\u201d of that statement. For example, if someone of having an affair with a student-athlete on his team, there\u2019s no spin or gloss or sophistry that can make that anything less than devastatingly defamatory. There is no innocent construction for such a statement.<\/p>\n

With reputation and interpersonal charity receding as values in American culture, more licentious strains of libertarianism took hold, including the idea of free speech absolutism. That set the immediate context of New York Times v. Sullivan<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Holloway thinks that Justice William Brennan, who wrote the majority opinion, was a \u201cpolitical liberal of that generation. He probably sincerely thought that the First Amendment requires a lot more protection for individual freedom of speech than what people thought in the past.\u201d Which is to say, Brennan might have been a thoughtful and astute legislator. Unfortunately, he performed that role while wearing a black robe.<\/p>\n

Justice Thomas wants to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan<\/em> for precisely this reason: it\u2019s among the most flagrant examples of legislating from the bench. Holloway\u2019s book provides the history to support that claim. Thomas may wish to send it to his colleagues as some late summer reading in the hopes of convincing two more to sign on to the next cert petition.<\/p>\n

Justice Gorsuch is more concerned that the actual malice standard and the notion of \u201cpublic figures\u201d are wildly . The standards in Sullivan<\/em> have \u201cevolved into a subsidy for published falsehoods on a scale no one could have foreseen, [and] has come to leave far more people without redress than anyone could have predicted.\u201d<\/p>\n

Neither Justice, though, appears interested in restoring the right to reputation nor affirming its place as a natural right. That\u2019s a missed opportunity to not only to restore the rights of Americans but to entice other justices to reconsider Sullivan<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Sullivan<\/em> downgraded reputation from a right to a privilege. Only people who are sufficiently non-public can sue to protect their reputation. That\u2019s one of the two-tier systems of justice that Sullivan<\/em> created. Sullivan<\/em> also gave a legal backstop to the coarsening of our culture, particularly our civic and political discourse. It\u2019s a very short line, philosophically and chronologically, between Sullivan<\/em> and the social media provocateurs who have become the leading voices of our time.<\/p>\n

Most importantly, the consequences of injury to reputation are not ephemeral. Someone who is defamed or libeled faces professional and financial ruin, social isolation, and significant mental and physical health consequences \u2014 including suicide.<\/p>\n

People no longer wield violence on the field of honor to defend or avenge their reputation. But they will turn the violence against themselves over the seemingly insurmountable loss of their reputation.<\/p>\n

The originalist case for overturning New York Times v. Sullivan<\/em> is strong and coherent. But Sullivan has plenty of arguments and consequences that warrant reconsideration by jurists of all stripes.<\/p>\n

READ MORE from George M.J. Perry:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gymnasts\u2019 Lawsuits Show That Safeguarding Protocols Are No Substitute for Justice<\/strong><\/p>\n

Read more Xi Jinping\u2019s Global Strategy: Why China\u2019s Unrestricted Warfare Demands America\u2019s Attention<\/a><\/p>\n

Maintain the Separation Between Sport and State<\/strong><\/p>\n

British Sports Scoop the NCAA in Protecting Female Athletes<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A most wonderful article<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1342,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1343","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-constitutional-opinions"],"yoast_head":"\nWhy Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Want to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan - National Logistics Post<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Want to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan - National Logistics Post\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A most wonderful article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"National Logistics Post\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-06T06:37:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/af6e6ad9b3cf5bfe495dc5541ee6a5cc\"},\"headline\":\"Why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Want to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-06T06:37:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343\"},\"wordCount\":1392,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/66cb68706d1922bb7b05a7c2d880ac9f.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Constitutional Opinions\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343\",\"name\":\"Why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Want to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan - National Logistics Post\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/66cb68706d1922bb7b05a7c2d880ac9f.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-06T06:37:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/af6e6ad9b3cf5bfe495dc5541ee6a5cc\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/66cb68706d1922bb7b05a7c2d880ac9f.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/66cb68706d1922bb7b05a7c2d880ac9f.jpg\",\"width\":867,\"height\":597},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?p=1343#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Want to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"National Logistics Post\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/af6e6ad9b3cf5bfe495dc5541ee6a5cc\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationallogisticspost.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Want to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan - National Logistics Post","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Want to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan - National Logistics Post","og_description":"A most wonderful article","og_url":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343","og_site_name":"National Logistics Post","article_published_time":"2026-08-06T06:37:57+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/#\/schema\/person\/af6e6ad9b3cf5bfe495dc5541ee6a5cc"},"headline":"Why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Want to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan","datePublished":"2026-08-06T06:37:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343"},"wordCount":1392,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/66cb68706d1922bb7b05a7c2d880ac9f.jpg","articleSection":["Constitutional Opinions"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343","url":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343","name":"Why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Want to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan - National Logistics Post","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/66cb68706d1922bb7b05a7c2d880ac9f.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-06T06:37:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/#\/schema\/person\/af6e6ad9b3cf5bfe495dc5541ee6a5cc"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/66cb68706d1922bb7b05a7c2d880ac9f.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/66cb68706d1922bb7b05a7c2d880ac9f.jpg","width":867,"height":597},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?p=1343#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Want to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/","name":"National Logistics Post","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/#\/schema\/person\/af6e6ad9b3cf5bfe495dc5541ee6a5cc","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com"],"url":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1343","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1343"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1343\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1342"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1343"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1343"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationallogisticspost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1343"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}