How Did New York Times V. Sullivan Changed Libel Law In The United States?

The Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan completely changed libel law in the United States. It set the precedent of the actual malice standard which gave the press a new kind of protection in court. It required that public officials prove that what was written or said about had, “…with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The Supreme Court did this because they thought it would bring about the main meaning of the First Amendment. However, three justices- Black, Douglas, and Goldberg did not think this change was enough to safeguard the press. They stated, that they believed that the press should be given complete immunity from libel suits when writing about public officials

We chose to have popular sovereignty instead of an absolute monarchy for many reasons, but one of the main reasons was so that the people would have a voice in who holds office instead of having no control over anything. Justice Black also states that, “We would, I think, more faithfully interpret the First Amendment by holding that, at the very least, it leaves the people and the press free to criticize officials and discuss public affairs with impunity. This Nation of ours elects many of its important officials; so do the States, the municipalities, the counties, and even many precincts.” The officials that hold office need to meet our standards of how we want our country to be run- and if they don’t they need to be called out by the press. So, there should be no limitation to the press because any limitation to them is a limitation to the right to discuss freely, and it is an infringement on the people’s rights to pick the best candidate possible to help our country