ipl-logo

New York Times Co. V Sullivan Case Brief Summary

1199 Words5 Pages

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), Justice Brennan, speaking on behalf of the majority, discusses the constitutional protections for speech and press. He discusses the restriction placed on a state’s authority to grant damages in a libel action initiated by a public official against critics of their official conduct. The majority opinion rightly concludes that The New York Times did not damage Sullivan’s reputation, because the statement was not made with “actual malice”. Historical Background To better understand the significance of the ruling, it is essential to examine the key events preceding The New York Times advertisement. With the civil rights movement emerging during the 1950s and 1960s, …show more content…

The Alabama state court affirmed Sullivan’s assertion that “the First Amendment does not protect libelous publications”. They considered the statements in the advertisement as libel per se, defining them as defamatory statements that are inherently actionable. Moreover, the court argued that the statements demonstrated malice towards Sullivan’s occupation. As a result, they awarded him $500,000 for his damages. Upon appeal by The Times, the verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Times petitioned for a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States, and the request was accepted. On March 9, 1964, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision in favor of The New York Times. Legal Questions - 1. Is Alabama’s libel law in contravention of the constitutional protections of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of press? 2. What is the difference between a'smart' and a'smart'? To what extent do the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a state’s ability to grant damages in a libel lawsuit brought by a public official against critics of their official actions? Analysis of the Majority Holding Mr. Justice Brennan, appointed by Republican President Dwight D. …show more content…

Particularly, in the context of a libel action initiated by a public official against critics of his official conduct. First, the Supreme Court used historical interpretation to overturn the ruling of the Alabama court. The Alabama court heavily relied on the assertion that the U.S. Constitution does not safeguard libelous publications. However, this assertion remains contentious as previous Court decisions had resulted in an equal division, leaving the question undecided. Hence, employing libel laws to penalize expressions critical of the conduct of public officials remains unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court has consistently concurred on the fundamental principle that freedom of expression regarding public matters is protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, it is affirmed that “the debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and

Show More
Related
428 Words | 2 Pages

Sullivan (1964), but higher than the previous state standard where damages may be claimed if defamatory articles were published, Burger disagrees with the court 's rationale. Instead of creating a new approach, Burger states he would prefer to let the law progress "with respect to private citizens rather than embark on a new doctrinal theory which has no jurisprudential ancestry." Although he does not agree with the majority ruling, Burger does find that Gertz was wrongly held accountable. He cites the importance of Sixth Amendment and that lawyers should be viewed as neither positive nor negative. Further, he argues such views would cause lawyers to become selective with unpopular clients.

Read More
3086 Words | 13 Pages

The Supreme Court concluded that the parody contained no statement of fact and thusly established that if that element was not present, there could be no recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress for public figures. The court ruled that the ad was protected under the First Amendment and was an obvious satire, which does not meet the standard of actual malice. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell established that a public figure may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the publication contains a false statement of fact made with actual

Read More
490 Words | 2 Pages

The judgement in favor of Sullivan was overturned, and the Times could not be convicted of libel because the courts must prove that a person has acted with malice when making a false statement. The New York Times had the right to make false claims because they were not acting with malice. Also, in Texas v. Johnson, Gregory Johnson was convicted of burning a flag and his conviction was overturned because the “law cannot limit freedom of speech just because the thing being said is offensive or disagreeable to

Read More
604 Words | 3 Pages

In June 21, 1973, Miller was convicted on the ground of advertising the sale of what was considered by the court as adult material. He was found guilty as he broke the California Statute. The California Statute forbids citizens from spreading what is considered offensive in societal standards. The question that was being asked was that if the action of Miller was Constitution thus is protected under the law. However, he lost the case due to a vote of 5 - 4.

Read More
998 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
1169 Words | 5 Pages

Libel requires a false and defamatory statement of fact, ‘of and concerning’ an identifiable living person (or business entity)” (1). He supports his claims with 29 years of professional experience that he shares on his legal blog writing specifically about writing and the law. Fowler’s credibility is further strengthened working with book and magazine publishers, newspapers, broadcasters, media companies, and online publishers, among others, adding related legal experience and examples of historical court cases, including relevant advice from one of two leading authors of defamation treatises, author Rodney Smolla. Fowler’s purpose of this article is to offer specialized knowledge and critical legal advice, in order to, help writers avoid rare, but costly and unnecessary risks and lawsuits.

Read More
481 Words | 2 Pages

The U.S. government’s announcement of the bombing of North Vietnam was also opposed by the report. By June 1971, The New York Times began to publish front-page articles containing the information found in the Pentagon Papers. After The New York Times published their third article, the United States Department of Justice decided to get a temporary restraining order on any future publications. A well-known court case, the New York Times Company v. United States, caught the attention of the Supreme Court. The Times and the Washington Post allied together to fight for the right of publication.

Read More
566 Words | 3 Pages

This time Fish argues that the First Amendment protects unpopular speeches or writings from having the government have its opinion. Fish explains that there is not an issue with the First Amendment, but rather than an issue with the editors not accepting the consequences of the

Read More
1527 Words | 7 Pages

If courts punish for the content of materials about such important issues was not absolutely true, it will produce the effect of self-censorship for editors and journalists. Being afraid to make a mistake in the details, they would be likely to skip talking about important social issues. But if such discussions cannot avoid mistakes, including the criticism of the authorities, so it needs Constitutional protection – protection of the First Amendment. “ That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected in the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need to survive’. ”

Read More
865 Words | 4 Pages

Censorship of The First Amendment This paper will discuss how censorship denies citizens of the United States our full rights as delineated in the First Amendment. It will outline how and why the first amendment was created and included in the Constitution of the United States of America. This paper will also define censorship, discuss a select few legal cases surrounding freedom of speech and censorship as well as provide national and local examples of censorship.

Read More
520 Words | 3 Pages

We ruled in the Times’s favor. They didn’t mean to make false claims about the elected official. They had no malicious intent. The other case was Texas v. Johnson. Gregory Johnson burned an American flag in protest.

Read More
1197 Words | 5 Pages

Although the government has the authority to curtail free speech rights, and punish speech that incites violence and harm, the First Amendment provides far reaching boundaries for the advocacy of political

Read More
903 Words | 4 Pages

Libel is libel, regardless of its validity, and should be punished. The possible consequences of libel could result in disturbances in society that could be detrimental for the general

Read More
1220 Words | 5 Pages

Introduction No known society anyplace has ever adopted a standard of entirely absolute free speech. As indicated by nearly all free speech scholars, freedom of speech has been understood to have limits. Indeed, even in today’s liberal democracies there is no idea of unconditional freedom of speech. All right to speak freely speech scholars and philosophers, except very few in the United States, emphasize that freedom of speech is not absolute, neither in theory, nor in practice . Although they all agree on the significance of free speech for finding reality, fostering individual self-fulfillment and self-realization and maintaining democracy, they also argue that words can wound and believe that unlimited freedom of speech might prove

Read More
870 Words | 4 Pages

In a classic formulation, recently adopted and approved by Geopel J. of Supreme Court of British Columbia, a communication is defamatory if it “tends to harm the reputation of another so as to lower [him, her or it] in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with them. If the defamatory communication takes a permanent or semi-permanent form – that is, if it is written, or spoken while being recorded or filmed such that it is preserved in some way – then it is libel, and actionable without proof of actual pecuniary loss. If it is some exceptions, only the economic losses that can be proven to have resulted from the false communication can be recovered. Examples:- Capital And Counties Bank vs Henty & Sons :-

Read More

More about New York Times Co. V Sullivan Case Brief Summary

Open Document