The 2026 Junior Digest (JD) Program is now open! Hosted by the Cornell Undergraduate Law and Society Review (CULSR), the JD Program is a new annual essay competition for high school students across the broader Upstate New York region.
Each year, the contest centers on a timely and thought-provoking theme designed to encourage critical engagement with legal and societal issues. The top three submissions will be published on CULSR’s Junior Digest page and recognized with special awards.
Defamation, The First Amendment, and Digital Contexts
Formatting Requirements:
Word Count: 750–1,000 words
Times New Roman, 11 pt. Font
Single Line Spacing
1” Margins
Justified alignment
Heading (left-aligned on first page only)
First Name Last Name
High School Name
Grade #
Date of Completion of Essay
Title (centered after heading on first page only)
Page numbers (right-aligned on a running header)
Citation Requirements:
Must include in-text citations using MLA or APA format.
Must include a reference list at the end of the paper (not included in the word count) in the same format as the in-text citations.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy:
The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools or Large Language Models (LLMs) to write, generate, paraphrase, or otherwise produce any portion of your submission is strictly prohibited. All written content must be composed solely by the student submitting the essay.
Submission Format:
PDF or Word document
Applicants must be enrolled in a full-time school in Upstate New York and in grades 9-12.
Contest Opening: March 1
Submission Deadline: April 24
Results Announced: on or around May 11
The First Amendment is a notable protection against government infringement on free speech. Courts have long debated the limitations and extent of free speech rights, and the rise of social media and digital communication has further complicated questions about who should regulate speech and when restrictions are justified. In an era of viral posts, anonymous accounts, famous influencers, and algorithm-driven narratives, false statements can spread faster and farther than ever before, often without traditional editorial oversight.
For over 60 years, the Supreme Court's New York Times v. Sullivan decision has required public figures to prove "actual malice" to win defamation cases, meaning they must show that false statements were made with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Recently, legal challenges have emerged questioning whether Sullivan remains appropriate in today's media landscape. Critics argue the standard has become a shield for "media irresponsibility," while defenders maintain it's essential for protecting journalism and public discourse.
In an essay, examine the concept of defamation, its connection to the First Amendment, and its transformation—or lack thereof—in the age of digital media. You may explore the topic broadly (examining relevant defamation definitions, precedents, and case studies), or you may explore the Sullivan standard more specifically (exploring whether the Sullivan standard should be revisited in our modern context). Does current defamation law properly balance freedom with protection against reputational harm, or is reform needed? Use legal, historical, and social evidence to defend your position.
Please use the following Google Form to make your submission. Feel free to email culsr.recruitment@gmail.com with any questions or concerns. Thank you, and we look forward to reading your essays soon!