New York Times Vs. Sullivan (1964)
In this freedom of the press case, the Court held that the First Amendment protected all statements about public officials unless the speaker lied with the explicit intent to defame. This freedom of the press case took place during the time of the civil rights movement. Civil rights leaders were in anti-segregational protests in Montgomery, Alabama. Officials in Montgomery were acting with violence towards the civil rights leaders. Later in the year, a group called the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South had an advertisement in the New York Times that claimed that the state and government officials responded in a "wave of terror" towards the African American students participating in the peaceful protests. When the Montgomery city commissioner L.B. Sullivan heard about the ad, he was outraged. Sullivan filed a libel lawsuit against the New York Times.
The United States Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Alabama decision. Justice William J Brennan wrote that in a libel case, a statement that is made must be proven that it was made with "actual malice." Brennan defined actual malice as "knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." He believed that Sullivan had not proven that the Times acted with actual malice, according to the definition. The new standard of libel was applied to every state. This made it harder for officials seeking to sue for libel. The decision created a shift in laws toward freedom of the press.
The case involved an advertisement, signed by civil rights leaders including Martin Luther King, Jr., which contained statements that turned out to be false. The decision held, “the pall of fear and timidity imposed upon those who would give voice to public criticism is an atmosphere in which the First Amendment freedoms cannot survive.” In referring to the historic importance of a free press to ensure justice in government, the ruling mentioned Thomas Jefferson’s and James Madison’s Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which were written in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Madison calls this right “the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.”
The United States Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Alabama decision. Justice William J Brennan wrote that in a libel case, a statement that is made must be proven that it was made with "actual malice." Brennan defined actual malice as "knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." He believed that Sullivan had not proven that the Times acted with actual malice, according to the definition. The new standard of libel was applied to every state. This made it harder for officials seeking to sue for libel. The decision created a shift in laws toward freedom of the press.
The case involved an advertisement, signed by civil rights leaders including Martin Luther King, Jr., which contained statements that turned out to be false. The decision held, “the pall of fear and timidity imposed upon those who would give voice to public criticism is an atmosphere in which the First Amendment freedoms cannot survive.” In referring to the historic importance of a free press to ensure justice in government, the ruling mentioned Thomas Jefferson’s and James Madison’s Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which were written in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Madison calls this right “the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.”