A Brief on New York Times v. Sullivan

Someone sent this in, and I thought I'd post it. See here for why.

New York Times V. Sullivan
376U.S. 254
84 S.Ct. 710
11 L.Ed. 2d 686

Summary:

A paid advertisement was published in the New York Times that told about the mistreatment of black students in Montgomery, Ala. who were peacefully protesting segregation. The City commissioner of Montgomery, L.B. Sullivan, filed a lawsuit claiming libel in the circuit court. Along with the NY Times, four black students were named as defendants. The Jury awarded Mr. Sullivan $500,000 in damages against each defendant.

Constitutional questions:

What constitutes libel? Can this advertisement printed in the New York times be shown to cause damage to Mr. Sullivan? What limits does the constitution impose upon states power to award damages in libel action brought by public official against critics of his official conduct?

Ruling: Reversed, 9-0

Reasoning:

The evidence Mr. Sullivan presented, and was the basis for the state supreme court judgment, was found insufficient to impose a fine of any magnitude upon the defendants. The rule of law applied to this case by the Alabama courts does not provide safeguards for freedom of speech required by the first and fourteenth amendment in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his conduct.

The paragraphs of the advertisement in question that respondent claims damage his character refer only indirectly to him. One refers to police action against students, which he claims to be the personification of the police by virtue of his position as city commissioner. The other paragraph refers to arrests made of students protesting. Police make arrests, so once again Mr. Sullivan claims it is referring to him.

We find it necessary that the national debate on public issues should be open, uninhibited, robust “and may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

The present issue is without question covered by the constitutional protection for free expression. We also find it unnecessary to determine the falsity of any factual statements. There shall be no exceptions to the protections of free speech based on the truth of a statement. Error in open public debate is inevitable. It is most important that the burden of truth never be on the speaker.

A rule requiring a guarantee of truth in criticism or public debate would have the effect of self-censorship. Potential critics would be deterred by the risk of accidentally stating the wrong facts or other similar mishaps.

In order for a public official to recover damages as a result of false criticism they must prove the statement is made with “actual malice,” that is, with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not. As for the defendants, we find their is insufficient evidence to show an “actual malice.” It was at most negligence on the part of the NY times. The lower court ruling is reversed and remanded.

Italics added.