New York Times V. Sullivan Case Analysis

Who would have guessed that the publishing of a ten-paragraph full-page ad, titled “Heed Their Rising Voices,” printed on page 25 of the March 29, 1960, New York Times, would not only forever change libel law in the United States, but also cause the Supreme Court to set the precedent in defense of press freedom? Given the contentious history of free expression, from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the repressive legislation of the World War 1 era, not many would have predicted the case of New York Times v. Sullivan to make a lasting impact on the way the courts interpret the phrase, “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” However, the words “no law . . . abridging

A prime example being Time, Inc. v. Hill, not but a year after the Sullivan case was decided. In 1951, three escaped convicts took the Hill family hostage in their home and after nineteen hours, the family was released unharmed. A year later, Joseph Hays' published a novel based on the Hill family's experience which was subsequently made into a play. Life Magazine then published an article about said play with many inaccuracies concerning the Hills. James Hill then sued Life because he believed that they deliberately misrepresented his family’s struggle. The question the court had to ask was whether a publication, containing falsehoods in their reporting, is protected under the first amendment. The court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, in favor of Time, with a majority opinion presented by William J. Brennan, who argued that as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to provide proof that Time published the article with the intention of releasing false statements about the Hills. Brennan said, “the New York privacy state could not be used to award damages for “false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that the defendant published the report with the knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth” (186).” In other words, the plaintiff could not prove actual