In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled on a landmark case holding in favor of New York Times and established a malice standard which must be met before a report in the press regarding a public figure can be considered defamatory or libel. The case New York Times v Sullivan, was argued before the Supreme Court by attorneys M. Ronald Nachman, Jr., for the respondent, and Herbert Wechsler, for the petitioner. Both attorneys presented compelling arguments on behalf of their clients.
Accordingly, Mr. Nachman presented four significant arguments on behalf of L. B. Sullivan, who had prevailed in the Alabama courts, claiming an ad in the New York Times, “Heed Their Rising Voices,” defamed him personally. Before the Supreme Court, Mr. Nachman argued that the Constitution conferred no absolute protection or immunity for the defamation of a public figure. Further, he stated that the Court had no reason to review a jury determination that the advertisement in question concerned Mr. Sullivan. He argued that the Times wanted to turn a factual finding
…show more content…
Wechsler’s and the Times’ First Amendment violation argument was a gamble. As he had conceded, the Supreme Court had previously left libel laws to the states and had said very little about the extent of the Freedom of Press Clause. Therefore, he had to convince the Court that the way Alabama had drafted and applied its libel laws was unconstitutional and possibly the very nature of libel laws, at least as they apply to the press, violated constitutional First Amendment protections. Application of the Freedom of Speech required a broad definition and Freedom of the Press required an even broader latitude of interpretation.
It is significant that Mr. Wechsler used the 1798 Sedition Act as the centerpiece of his presentations to the Court and referred to it again and again. And, it is the highest compliment that Justice Brennan’s opinion contained wording that revealed he was influenced by Mr. Wechsler persuasive and insightful