Search results
Supreme Court. 376 U.S. 254. 84 S.Ct. 710. 11 L.Ed.2d 686. The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Petitioner, v. L. B. SULLIVAN. Ralph D. ABERNATHY et al., Petitioners, v. L. B. SULLIVAN. Nos. 39, 40. Argued Jan. 6 and 7, 1964. Decided March 9, 1964. [Syllabus from pages 254-255 intentionally omitted] William P. Rogers and Samuel R. Pierce, Jr.,
- Controversy
- Facts
- Issue
During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the New York Times published an ad for contributing donations to defend Martin Luther King, Jr., on perjury charges. The ad contained several minor factual inaccuracies. The city Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, felt that the criticism of his subordinates reflected on him, even though he was ...
When the Times refused and claimed that they were puzzled by the request, Sullivan filed a libel action against the Times and a group of African American ministers mentioned in the ad. A jury in state court awarded him $500,000 in damages. The state supreme court affirmed and the Times appealed.
Did Alabama's libel law unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections? 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 investigati...
He brought this civil libel action against the four individual petitioners, who are Negroes and Alabama clergymen, and against petitioner the New York Times Company, a New York corporation which publishes the New York Times, a daily newspaper.
People also ask
What is Sullivan v New York Times v Sullivan?
Why did Sullivan file a libel lawsuit against the New York Times?
Why did Sullivan retract a libel AD?
Why did the Supreme Court reject petitioners' contention?
supreme. New York Times v. Sullivan. Provided by Justia. Syllabus. Opinion of The Court Opinion. Facts of the Case. Provided by Oyez. During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the New York Times published an ad for contributing donations to defend Martin Luther King, Jr., on perjury charges. The ad contained several minor factual inaccuracies.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A public official must show by clear and convincing evidence that the statements made against him are false and were made with actual malice. Actual malice requires the speaker to know that the statement was false or that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
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.
The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Petitioner, v. L. B. SULLIVAN. Ralph D. ABERNATHY et al., Petitioners, v. L. B. SULLIVAN. Nos. 39, 40. Decided March 9, 1964. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and
