Point: What does Nytimes v Sullivan say about freedom of speech? The Court said the right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment. The Court also said in order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice – "that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth." Point: How does the Sullivan ruling protect the public? The decision established the important principle that the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press may protect libelous words about a public official in order to foster vigorous debate about government and public affairs. Point: Why was NYT v Sullivan important? That's what the Supreme Court decided in its landmark 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, which has deterred the powerful from using defamation lawsuits to intimidate and silence for more than 60 years, ruling that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Point: In a 6-3 decision, the Court dissolved the restraining order and allowed the Times to continue with publication. Citing Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), Near v. Minnesota (1931), and Organization for a Better Austin v. Point The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 9, 1964, in The New York Times v. Sullivan that the Constitution prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood related to his official conduct. Point The First Amendment prohibits government from abridging “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” This basic freedom ensures that the spirit of the First Amendment survives and thrives even when the majority of citizens would rather suppress expression it finds offensive.