Search results
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation.
Jul 30, 2021 · In a unanimous decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the court sided with the newspaper, writing that “erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need . . . to survive.’”.
Sullivan was a defamation case decided in the throes of the Civil Rights Movement that was then surging throughout the United States. The New York Times published a full-page advertisement on behalf of African Americans and clergymen in Alabama who were then combatting the Jim Crow laws; the ad accused various Alabama officials of violence and ...
May 11, 2023 · Sullivan, a 1964 Supreme Court decision that made it harder to win defamation suits against the media. The Court had argued that the press in a democracy must be able to criticize government...
- Jeannie Suk Gersen
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 .
- 20 min
- Freedom of Speech
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.
People also ask
Did the New York Times ad hurt lb Sullivan?
Why is the New York Times v Sullivan important?
Why did the times appeal a Sullivan AD?
Why did the times not check Sullivan's AD?
Jun 15, 2022 · Sullivan argued that Martin Luther King, Jr. had been arrested four times, not seven; further, the police were not implicated in the bombings at Dr. King's home. He demanded that the newspaper retract the ad for these inaccuracies.
