In the 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspaper and established that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the press, including libelous statements about public officials. The decision established that public officials must prove that a defamatory statement was made with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard" of the truth in order to win a libel suit. "Actual malice" means the speaker knew the statement was false, or disregarded the truth. The ruling also established that the statement must be about the official individually, not about government policy in general.
The New York Times v. Sullivan decision is considered a landmark case that has protected the press and others who speak on public affairs, and arguably helped the civil rights movement. It has also been said to give people a chance to fight against those with more power.
In the 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspaper and established that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the press, including libelous statements about public officials. The decision established that public officials must prove that a defamatory statement was made with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard" of the truth in order to win a libel suit. "Actual malice" means the speaker knew the statement was false, or disregarded the truth. The ruling also established that the statement must be about the official individually, not about government policy in general. The New York Times v. Sullivan decision is considered a landmark case that has protected the press and others who speak on public affairs, and arguably helped the civil rights movement. It has also been said to give people a chance to fight against those with more power.