Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Read a random definition: mother country

A quick definition of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964):

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is a famous court case that said public officials can't sue for defamation (when someone says something untrue that hurts their reputation) unless the person who said it knew it was false and said it anyway. This case started because of an advertisement in The New York Times that had some mistakes in it. A police commissioner sued for defamation, but the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment (which protects free speech) is more important than the common law rule that says people can be sued for saying untrue things. The Court said that it's important for people to be able to talk about public issues without worrying about getting sued, and that public officials have to prove that someone knew they were saying something false on purpose.

A more thorough explanation:

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is a famous decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court. It says that the First Amendment of the Constitution protects freedom of speech, which means public officials cannot sue for defamation easily.

The case started when supporters of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ran a full-page advertisement in The New York Times in 1960. The advertisement talked about civil rights protests in Montgomery, Alabama, praised Dr. King, and criticized some Southern officials for violating the rights of African Americans. The advertisement had some factual errors, and a Montgomery police commissioner sued for defamation.

The Supreme Court of Alabama agreed with the commissioner, saying that the First Amendment did not protect libelous publications. But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. They said that public officials could only sue for defamation if the statements were false and made with "actual malice," which means "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

The Court said that the common law rule would lead to self-censorship, which means people would be afraid to speak out about public officials. Instead, they put a more rigorous standard in place to protect free political discussion, which is essential to the security of the Republic.

For example, if a journalist writes an article about a politician and makes a mistake, the politician cannot sue for defamation unless the journalist knew the information was false and published it anyway. This protects the journalist's freedom of speech and encourages open discussion about public officials.

New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) | Newly discovered evidence

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
babycat
11:10
yeah fuck gtown btw
LSDFan
11:10
they don't even kick doors. They put C4 in a dip can and tape it to the wall
11:10
I am sure they kick some doors but yes
11:11
@EvolBunny: im a uki
babycat
11:11
terrible admin
BulbasaurNoLikeCardio
11:11
@babycat: I wonder why gtown felt what they said was a good idea and how secure that individual felt in their job to believe there would be no backlash.
Dkk
11:11
please, tell me more about Europa: The Last Battle @MostlyLegal
11:11
nothing you dont already know
Dkk
11:12
Lmfao, damn out of messages again. Time to go sit in the hot tub.
11:12
@BulbasaurNoLikeCardio: honestly fuck these schools
11:12
The way they act is so cringe and gives mad ick
babycat
11:12
@BulbasaurNoLikeCardio: people are saying this has been a pattern with them
babycat
11:12
imagine being a religious school and not supporting mothers. practice what you preach!
11:12
Fuck dem hoes
11:13
Child bearing people*
11:13
i cant spell fuck dont correct me
11:15
Anywayyyyy, i think today i will withdraw all my apps
11:15
This lsat is not doing it
babycat
11:15
lol live ur truth
11:15
ASU at 154 is damn good
11:15
154 scholly
BulbasaurNoLikeCardio
11:15
It is shitty that was a pattern of behavior but I am glad someone is finally standing up for themselves. Like I can be a pretty rigid butthole guy when it comes to getting stuff but a complete lack of empathy or situational awareness shown by the school and their staff is mind blowing. When I was talking about it in the office they all thought I was lying cause it sounds so crazy.
Dkk
11:16
@babycat: ahh link me something. Idk what you are talking about with GTown and mothers and all that.
11:16
Idk if any of you watch UFC but one time interim heavyweight champ Tom Aspinall won a fight and said on the mic afterwards “if you feel scared to do something, that’s a pretty good sign you should just go fucking do it” and I believe that applies very much to people wondering if they should R&R. Sure you can but why not just see what happens now?
babycat
11:16
School fucked up so bad they got hellwoods to sign a petition
11:16
Ive also heard their career center is awful too, I think its why it will never be anything but 14-15
JumpySubsequentDolphin
11:17
@Dkk: i think a law student was pregnant and due to give birth a few days before finals and they refused to accomodate her
JumpySubsequentDolphin
11:17
accommodate*
11:17
@Mostlylegal: yeah and i was thinking fuck it just go party for three years but i got other options and need to start building, top law schools were worth that 3 year pause but i am not sure i can do that for asu and their outcomes
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.