16:16
prolly named veronica or sarah
Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSDefine
Simple English definitions for legal terms
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Read a random definition: revaluation
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.