New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) - Bill of Rights Institute

On March 9, 1964, the United States Supreme Court issued the New York Times vs Sullivan decision that public officials must prove malice to claim libel and recover damages. From the article:

"New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Summary
This lesson focuses on the 1964 landmark freedom of the press case New York Times v. Sullivan. The Court held that the First Amendment protects newspapers even when they print false statements, as long as the newspapers did not act with “actual malice.”

Activity
It was 1960 and the Civil Rights Movement was gaining strength. Civil rights leaders ran a full-page ad in the New York Times to raise funds to help civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr. Sixty well-known Americans signed it. The ad described what it called “ an unprecedented wave of terror” of police actions against peaceful demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. What it described was mostly accurate, but some of the charges in the ad were not true. For example, the ad said that police “ringed” a college campus where protestors were, but this charge was exaggerated. The ad also contained the false statement: “When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to re-register, their dining hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into submission.”

L.B. Sullivan was one of three people in charge of police in Montgomery. He sued the New York Times for libel (printing something they knew was false and would cause harm). The ad did not mention Sullivan’s name. But Sullivan claimed that the ad implied his responsibility for the actions of the police. He said that the ad damaged his reputation in the community. In the Alabama court, Sullivan won his case and the New York Times was ordered to pay $500,000 in damages.

The Times appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The newspaper argued that it had no intention of hurting L.B. Sullivan. The newspaper had no reason to believe that the advertisement included false statements, so it did not check their accuracy. The Times argued that if a newspaper had to check the accuracy of every criticism of every public official, a free press would be severely limited.

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. In order to prove libel, a “public official” must show that the newspaper acted “with ‘actual malice’–that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard” for truth. The Court asserted America’s “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Free and open debate about the conduct of public officials, the Court reasoned, was more important than occasional, honest factual errors that might hurt or damage officials’ reputations."