Paper Topic:

NEW YORK TIMES V SULLVIAN

New York Times vs . Sullivan

376 U .S . 254 (1964

Issue : Does Freedom of Speech protect a news when it makes false defamatory statements about the conduct of a public official if the statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the actual facts ? The holding does not match the issue . If the fourteenth amendment is going to be incorporated in the holding , then it has to be in the issue . Also , the issue needs to be posted in a constitutional way . For example : By not requiring Sullivan to prove

that the advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors , did Alabama 's libel law unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendments freedom of speech and freedom of press protections

Statement of the Facts : The New York Times published a full page ad soliciting funds to defend Martin Luther King , Jr . In the ad were accusations of brutal force employed by the Montgomery police force against King 's followers . L .B . Sullivan , the police commissioner at the time , claimed the ad maligned his character . He sued for , and won damages from the lower court

The Holding /Decision of the Court : The Court held that the First and Fourteenth amendments protected a publisher from libel only if the false and derogatory statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth

Reasons /Rationale : The Court made its decision based on three closely-related facts First , the commercial nature of the advertisement Second , the existence of actual malice and Finally , the tendency for the alleged libel to be connected to the plaintiff

The New York Times was paid to publish the ad . However the fact that it was a paid advertisement does not make it a 'commercial ad ' in that it waives constitutional guarantees of Freedom of Speech . To consider it as such would discourage newss from accepting "editorial advertisements " which would have a dangerous tendency to shut out this form of information promulgation . Furthermore , it would curtail freedom of speech and shackle those who do not own publications . This would be in violation of the First Amendment , which aims to secure "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources

There was no actual malice in this case although negligence can be ascribed to the NY Times for not exercising due diligence in ensuring the facts published . The had merely published a paid advertisement . The publisher cannot be accused of knowingly publishing falsehoods . Being a public official , Commissioner Sullivan had to accept the reality that his work would be under constant scrutiny . A higher level of proof is necessary to prove that the defendant printed material with intent to malign Sullivan 's character , especially since the alleged criticism was about his official functions as the police commissioner

Finally , the alleged libelous ad did not bear any mention of his name While the ad criticized the activities and brutality of the police there was never any direct mention of Sullivan or...

3 pages

32.0 KB

Free sing-up