Judgment for plaintiff, Circuit Court, Montgomery County, Alabama; motion for new trial denied, Circuit Court, Montgomery County; affirmed, 144 So. 2d 25 (Ala. 1962); cert. granted, 371U.S. 946 (1963).
Holding
A newspaper cannot be held liable for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official unless the statements were made with actual malice.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmarkU.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of a public official to sue for defamation.[1][2] The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false.[2]New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.[3]
The underlying case began in 1960, when The New York Times published a full-page advertisement by supporters of Martin Luther King Jr. that criticized the police in Montgomery, Alabama, for their treatment of civil rights movement protesters.[2] The ad had several factual errors regarding the number of times King had been arrested during the protests, what song the protesters had sung, and whether students had been expelled for participating.[2] Based on the inaccuracies, Montgomery police commissioner L. B. Sullivan sued the Times for defamation in the local Alabama county court.[2] After the judge ruled that the advertisement's inaccuracies were defamatory per se, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Sullivan and awarded him $500,000 in damages.[2] The Times appealed first to the Supreme Court of Alabama, which affirmed the verdict, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
In March 1964, the Court issued a 9–0 decision holding that the Alabama court's verdict violated the First Amendment.[1] The Court reasoned that defending the principle of wide-open debate will inevitably include "vehement, caustic, and...unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." The Supreme Court's decision, and its adoption of the actual malice standard, reduced the financial exposure from potential defamation claims and frustrated efforts by public officials to use these claims to suppress political criticism.[4][5] The Supreme Court has since extended Sullivan's higher legal standard for defamation to all "public figures". This has made it extremely difficult for a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit in the United States.
Background
On March 29, 1960, The New York Times carried a full-page advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices", paid for by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South.[6][7] In the advertisement, the Committee solicited funds to defend Martin Luther King Jr., against an Alabamaperjury indictment. The advertisement described actions against civil rights protesters, some of them inaccurately, some of which involved the police force of Montgomery, Alabama. Referring to Alabama "official authority and police power", the advertisement stated: "They have arrested [King] seven times. ... ", whereas he had been arrested four times; and that "truckloads of police ... ringed the Alabama State College Campus" after the demonstration at the State Capitol, whereas the police had been "deployed near" the campus but had not actually "ringed" it and had not gone there in connection with the State Capitol demonstration.[1] Although the Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, was not named in the advertisement, Sullivan argued that the inaccurate criticism of actions by the police was defamatory to him as well because it was his duty to supervise the police department.[1]
The advertisement published in The New York Times on March 29, 1960, that led to Sullivan's defamation lawsuit.
Because Alabama law denied public officers recovery of punitive damages in a libel action on their official conduct unless they first made a written demand for a public retraction and the defendant failed or refused to comply, Sullivan sent such a request.[1] The Times did not publish a retraction in response to the demand. Instead, its lawyers wrote a letter[8] stating, among other things, that "we ... are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way reflect on you," and "you might, if you desire, let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you."[1]
The Times subsequently published a retraction of the advertisement upon the demand of Governor John Patterson of Alabama, who alleged the publication charged him with "grave misconduct and ... improper actions and omissions as Governor of Alabama and ex officio chairman of the State Board of Education of Alabama."[1] When asked to explain why there had been a retraction for the Governor but not for Sullivan, the Secretary of the Times testified:
We did that because we didn't want anything that was published by the Times to be a reflection on the State of Alabama and the Governor was, as far as we could see, the embodiment of the State of Alabama and the proper representative of the state and we had by that time learned more of the facts which the ad purported to recite and, finally, the ad did refer to the action of the state authorities and the Board of Education presumably of which the Governor is the ex officio chairman ...
However, the Secretary also testified he did not think that "any of the languages in there referred to Mr. Sullivan."[1]
The jury returned a verdict for Sullivan and awarded him $500,000 in damages ($5.1 million in 2023). The state supreme court affirmed[9] on August 30, 1962, saying "The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect libelous publications". The Times appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[10][11]
Constitutional law scholar Herbert Wechsler successfully argued the case before the United States Supreme Court. Louis M. Loeb, a partner at the firm of Lord Day & Lord who served as chief counsel to the Times from 1948 to 1967,[12] was among the authors of the brief of the Times.
Decision
On March 9, 1964, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision in favor of the Times that vacated the Alabama court's judgment and limited newspapers' liability for damages in defamation suits by public officials.
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. authored the Court's opinion, and five other justices joined it.[a] The Court began by explaining that criticizing government and public officials was at the core of the American constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.[13]
The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, "was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people." ... "[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect taste, on all public institutions." ... The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all."
— Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 269–70 (citations omitted).[14]
The Court said that because of these core American free-speech principles, it would have to consider Sullivan's defamation claims "against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that 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 public officials."[15]
With this background, the Court framed the case around the question of whether this American constitutional commitment to free speech required loosening traditional defamation laws.
The present advertisement, as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection. The question is whether it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.
— Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 271.
In answer, the Court held that the advertisement's inaccuracies did not remove its free-speech constitutional protections. The Court reasoned that "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and ... must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space that they need ... to survive".[16] It concluded that the importance of safeguarding the "breathing space" created by the First Amendment's protections required giving constitutional protection to "erroneous statements honestly made".[17] The Court analogized Alabama's libel law to the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts passed in the late 1790s during the presidency of John Adams.[17] It reasoned that a broad interpretation of libel laws that protected government officials from criticism would produce situations similar to those under the Alien and Sedition Acts, which had been historically criticized.[17]
Because of the importance of free debate about public officials, the Court held that it was not enough that Alabama's libel law—like most libel laws in the English common law tradition—allowed defendants to use the truth of their defamatory statements as a defense.[13] Instead, the Court held that under U.S. law, any public official suing for defamation must prove that the defendant made the defamatory statement with "actual malice".
The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice" – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
The Court said that besides proving "actual malice", the First Amendment's protections also imposed two other limitations on libel laws. First, a public official seeking damages must prove that the defendant's defamatory statement was about the official individually, not about government policy generally. Second, unlike in traditional common law defamation lawsuits where the defendant had the burden to prove that his or her statement was true, in defamation suits involving American public officials the officials must prove that the defendant's statement was false.[17]
International comparisons
The rule that somebody alleging defamation should have to prove untruth, rather than that the defendant should have to prove the truth of a statement, stood as a departure from the previous common law. In England, the development was specifically rejected in Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd[19] and it was also rejected in Canada in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto[20] and more recently in Grant v. Torstar Corp.[21] In Australia, the outcome of the case was followed in Theophanous v. The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd,[22] but Theophanous was itself overruled by the High Court of Australia in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520.
50th anniversary
In 2014, on the 50th anniversary of the ruling, The New York Times released an editorial in which it stated the background of the case, laid out the rationale for the Supreme Court decision, critically reflected on the state of freedom of the press 50 years after the ruling and compared the state of freedom of the press in the United States with other nations. The editorial board of The New York Times heralded the Sullivan decision not only as a ruling which "instantly changed libel law in the United States", but also as "the clearest and most forceful defense of press freedom in American history."[23] The board added:
The ruling was revolutionary because the court for the first time rejected virtually any attempt to squelch criticism of public officials—even if false—as antithetical to "the central meaning of the First Amendment." Today, our understanding of freedom of the press comes in large part from the Sullivan case. Its core observations and principles remain unchallenged, even as the Internet has turned everyone into a worldwide publisher—capable of calling public officials instantly to account for their actions and also of ruining reputations with the click of a mouse.[23]
In a 2015 Time magazine survey of over 50 law professors, both Owen Fiss (Yale) and Steven Shiffrin (Cornell) named New York Times v. Sullivan "the best Supreme Court decision since 1960," with Fiss noting that the decision helped cement "the free-speech traditions that have ensured the vibrancy of American democracy" and Schiffrin remarking that the case "overturned the censorial aspects of the law of libel and made it far easier in what’s left of our democracy for citizens—including the Fourth Estate—to criticize the powerful."[3]
Later developments
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) held that public figures who are not public officials may still sue news organizations if they disseminate information about them which is recklessly gathered and unchecked.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974): Actual malice not necessary for defamation of private person if negligence is present.
Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967). Extension of actual malice standard to false light invasion of privacy tort.
In February 2019, the Supreme Court denied a petition brought by Katherine McKee, one of the women that accusedBill Cosby of sexual assault, which claimed that Cosby had leaked a letter that permanently damaged her reputation, and had sought civil action against Cosby on this matter. Lower courts rejected her case based on New York Times Co., stating that she "thrust herself to the forefront of a public controversy", making her a limited public figure and requiring the higher standard of malice to be demonstrated. The denial by the Supreme Court did not include a vote count, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the solitary opinion on the case, agreeing that denial was appropriate per New York Times Co., but stating that he believed that decision of New York Times Co. was made wrongly. Thomas wrote "If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we".[24]
In March 2021, federal judge Laurence Silberman called on the Supreme Court to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, stating that the New York Times and The Washington Post are "virtually Democratic Party broadsheets". Silberman's dissent also accused big tech companies of censoring conservatives and warned that "Democratic Party ideological control" of mainstream media may be a prelude to an "authoritarian or dictatorial regime" that constitutes "a threat to a viable democracy".[25][26]
Judge Silberman's dissent produced significant public discussion of Sullivan and potential reforms. Many conservative-leaning outlets endorsed Silberman's criticisms of Sullivan.[27] Most liberal-leaning outlets and several moderate conservatives condemned Silberman's decision for its tone and the substantive idea of loosening defamation standards.[28] However, some liberal scholars and a Harvard Law student writing in the Wall Street Journal embraced significant reforms to Sullivan.[29]
In the July 2021 denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson, Justice Thomas dissented and reiterated his opposition to New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice Neil Gorsuch also questioned the usefulness of NYT v. Sullivan when applied to today's media and social media.[30] Thomas reiterated his stance against the New York Times v. Sullivan decision in the Court's denial to grant certification in October 2023 to hear a case brought by Don Blankenship claiming defamation from news agencies; Thomas argued in a dissent to the denial that NYT v. Sullivan allows news agenices to "cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity".[31]
On March 19, 2023, The New York Times published a story reviewing the original advertisement and the legal case.[32]
^"Heed Their Rising Voices". The New York Times (advertisement). March 29, 1960. National Archives Identifier 2641477. Retrieved March 11, 2014 – via National Archives Atlanta, Records of District Courts of the United States.
^New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 273 Ala. 656 (Supreme Court of Alabama August 30, 1962).
^Carson, Clayborne; Armstrong, Tenisha; Carson, Susan; Cook, Erin; Englander, Susan, eds. (May 30, 2017). "New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254". Martin Luther King Jr., Encyclopedia. Stanford University: The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
^ abThe New York Times Editorial Board (March 9, 2014). "The Uninhibited Press, 50 Years Later". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 10, 2021. Retrieved March 11, 2014. A version of this editorial appeared in print on March 9, 2014, on page SR10 of the New York edition with the headline: The Uninhibited Press, 50 Years Later.
Edmondson, Aimee. "Rearticulating New York Times v. Sullivan as a Social Duty to Journalists", Journalism Studies 18, no. 1 (Jan 2017): 86–101. response to Donald Trump's campaign promise to " "open up" libel laws to make it easier for officeholders to sue the media.
Smolla, Rodney A. Suing the Press: Libel, the Media, and Power. NY: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Watson, John C. (2002). "Times v. Sullivan: Landmark or Land Mine on the Road to Ethical Journalism?". Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 17 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1207/S15327728JMME1701_02. S2CID144013866.
Greek footballer (born 1994) Odysseas Vlachodimos Vlachodimos with VfB Stuttgart in 2012Personal informationFull name Odysseas Vlachodimos[1]Date of birth (1994-04-26) 26 April 1994 (age 29)Place of birth Stuttgart, GermanyHeight 1.91 m (6 ft 3 in)[2]Position(s) GoalkeeperTeam informationCurrent team Nottingham ForestNumber 23Youth career2000–2002 VfL Wangen2002–2013 VfB StuttgartSenior career*Years Team Apps (Gls)2012–2015 VfB Stuttgart II 68 (0)2015...
Artikel ini tidak memiliki referensi atau sumber tepercaya sehingga isinya tidak bisa dipastikan. Tolong bantu perbaiki artikel ini dengan menambahkan referensi yang layak. Tulisan tanpa sumber dapat dipertanyakan dan dihapus sewaktu-waktu.Cari sumber: Koteka – berita · surat kabar · buku · cendekiawan · JSTOR Koteka Koteka adalah pakaian untuk menutup kemaluan laki-laki dalam budaya sebagian penduduk asli Pulau Papua. Koteka terbuat dari Moncong burun...
Shinran (親鸞)Potret Anjo karya Shinran di Honganji, Kyoto, Jepang.GelarPendiri Buddha Jōdo ShinshūInformasi pribadiLahir(1173-05-21)21 Mei 1173Heian-kyō, Yamashiro Province (sekarang Kyoto, Jepang)Meninggal16 Januari 1263(1263-01-16) (umur 89)Heian-kyō, Provinsi YamashiroPasanganEshinniAnakKakushinnhi, Zenran, lain-lainMazhabBuddha Jōdo ShinshūKedudukan seniorGuruHōnen Shinran (親鸞code: ja is deprecated , 21 Mei 1173 – 16 Januari 1263)[1][2] adalah seorang ...
هذه المقالة يتيمة إذ تصل إليها مقالات أخرى قليلة جدًا. فضلًا، ساعد بإضافة وصلة إليها في مقالات متعلقة بها. (ديسمبر 2018) ألان ديكين (بالإنجليزية: Alan Deakin) معلومات شخصية الميلاد 27 نوفمبر 1941(1941-11-27)بالسال هيث [لغات أخرى] تاريخ الوفاة 2 يناير 2018 (عن عمر ناهز 76 عاما...
Urbanized area of northeastern New Jersey, US This article uses bare URLs, which are uninformative and vulnerable to link rot. Please consider converting them to full citations to ensure the article remains verifiable and maintains a consistent citation style. Several templates and tools are available to assist in formatting, such as reFill (documentation) and Citation bot (documentation). (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) From upper left, clockwise: South ...
AdadaPoster teatrikalNama lainHangul아다다 Alih Aksara yang DisempurnakanAdadaMcCune–ReischauerAdada Sutradara Im Kwon-taek Produser Park Jong-chan Ditulis oleh Gye Yong-muk Yoon Sam-yuk PemeranShin Hye-sooHan Ji-ilPenata musikKim Young-dongSinematograferJung Il-sungTanggal rilis 19 Maret 1987 (1987-03-19) Durasi118 menitNegara Korea Selatan Bahasa Korea Adada (Hangul: 아다다) adalah film Korea Selatan tahun 1987 yang disutradarai oleh Im Kwon-taek, yang dida...
Stonebridge Park DepotTwo trains of 1972 Stock stabled at the depotLocationLocationBrent, United KingdomCoordinates51°32′53″N 0°17′13″W / 51.548°N 0.287°W / 51.548; -0.287OS gridTQ188845CharacteristicsOwnerLondon UndergroundTypeTube stockHistoryOpened1979 Stonebridge Park Depot was also the historic name for part of Wembley Intercity Depot Stonebridge Park Depot is a stabling and maintenance depot for trains on the Bakerloo line of the London Underground in...
City in Alabama, United States City in Alabama, United StatesMadison, AlabamaCityCity of MadisonThe Madison Historic District was added to the National Register of Historic Places on March 29, 2006.Motto(s): Play hard, learn well & live richlyLocation of Madison in Limestone County and Madison County, Alabama.Coordinates: 34°42′54″N 86°44′23″W / 34.71500°N 86.73972°W / 34.71500; -86.73972CountryUnited StatesStateAlabamaCountiesMadison, LimestoneGov...
Coalition of political parties which contested the 1990 Nicaraguan general election For the earlier coalition of this name, see National Opposition Union (1966). Not to be confused with the National Opposing Union. This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation and footnoting. (March 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) The UNO flag National Opposition Union (Spanish: Unión Nacional Op...
Diskografi PentagonAlbum studio2Video musik20Extended play15Singel19Album soundtrack4 Diskografi boy band Korea Selatan Pentagon terdiri dari dua album studio, lima belas extended play dan sembilan belas singel. Album studio List of studio albums, with selected details, chart positions and sales Title Details Peak chart positions Sales KOR[1] JPN[2] JPN Hot[3] Universe: The Black Hall Released: February 12, 2020 (KOR) Label: Cube Entertainment Formats: CD, digital down...
American baseball player Baseball player Merle SettlemirePitcherBorn: (1903-01-19)January 19, 1903Santa Fe, OhioDied: June 12, 1988(1988-06-12) (aged 85)Russells Point, OhioBatted: LeftThrew: LeftMLB debutApril 13, 1928, for the Boston Red SoxLast MLB appearanceSeptember 29, 1928, for the Boston Red SoxMLB statisticsRecord0–6ERA5.47Strikeouts12 Teams Boston Red Sox (1928) Edgar Merle Settlemire (January 19, 1903 – June 12, 1988) was an American professio...
Physico-chemical changes in sediments occurring after their deposition A form of diagenesis is permineralization, in which buried organisms are replaced by minerals. These trilobites (Lloydolithus) were replaced by pyrite during a specific type of permineralization called pyritization. Permineralization in vertebra from Valgipes bucklandi Diagenesis (/ˌdaɪ.əˈdʒɛnəsɪs/) is the process that describes physical and chemical changes in sediments first caused by water-rock interactions, mic...
The LoverOpening title ITV, 1963Written byHarold PinterDate premiered28 March 1963 (1963-03-28)Place premieredITVOriginal languageEnglishGenreOne-act play The Lover is a 1962 one-act play by Harold Pinter, originally written for television, but subsequently performed on stage.[1] The play contrasts bourgeois domesticity with sexual yearning.[2] As with the drama of Anton Chekhov, some of Pinter's plays support serious and comic interpretations; The Lover has bee...
Season of television series Criminal Minds Season of television series Criminal MindsSeason 8DVD cover artStarring Joe Mantegna Shemar Moore Matthew Gray Gubler A.J. Cook Kirsten Vangsness Jeanne Tripplehorn Thomas Gibson Country of originUnited StatesNo. of episodes24ReleaseOriginal networkCBSOriginal releaseSeptember 26, 2012 (2012-09-26) –May 22, 2013 (2013-05-22)Season chronology← PreviousSeason 7Next →Season 9List of episodes The eighth season of Criminal M...
South Korean novelist, journalist and critic This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (July 2021) In this Korean name, the family name is Kim. Kim HoonNative name김훈BornMay 5th, 1948Seoul, South KoreaOccupationwriter, journalist, critic, essayistPeriod1994 -Genrenovels, short-storiesNotable worksSong of the SwordNotable awardsYi Sang Lite...
Parque nacional de Bhitarkanika Categoría UICN II (parque nacional) Flora y fauna de los manglares de Bhitarkanika Mangroves.SituaciónPaís IndiaUbicación Orissa (India)División Distrito de KendraparaCiudad cercana KendraparaCoordenadas 20°39′45″N 86°56′03″E / 20.6625, 86.9341Datos generalesAdministración Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Bosques, gobierno de la IndiaFecha de creación 1988Superficie 145 km² Parque nacional de Bhitarkanika Ubicació...
يفتقر محتوى هذه المقالة إلى الاستشهاد بمصادر. فضلاً، ساهم في تطوير هذه المقالة من خلال إضافة مصادر موثوق بها. أي معلومات غير موثقة يمكن التشكيك بها وإزالتها. (مارس 2021) ألما - مارسوAlma - Marceau (بالفرنسية) معلومات عامةالتقسيم الإداري الدائرة الثامنة في باريس البلد فرنسا شبكة ا...
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (June 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Rootz: The Green City Music FestivalRani Arbo and Daisy Mayhem performing at the first annual Green City Music Festival on July 12, 2008.GenreFolk and othersDatesJulyLocation(s) Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaYears active2008–2019, 2021–Founded byCalli...
Sporting event delegationMalaysia at theOlympicsIOC codeMASNOCOlympic Council of MalaysiaWebsitewww.olympic.org.my (in English)MedalsRanked 114th Gold 0 Silver 8 Bronze 5 Total 13 Summer appearances195619601964196819721976198019841988199219962000200420082012201620202024Winter appearances20182022Other related appearances North Borneo (1956) Malaysia first participated at the Olympic Games in 1956, and has sent athletes to compete in every Summer Olympic Games since then, except when...
