New York Times v. Sullivan Case Study
This deck covers the landmark Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, focusing on key legal principles and decisions related to freedom of speech and libel laws.
NEW YORK TIMES v. SULLIVAN
This case is about a full-page ad alleging the arrest of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. for perjury in Alabama. The false statement's intention was to destroy King's effort to integrate public facilities and encourage black Americans to vote. Mr. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, issued a LIBEL SUIT against NYT and 4 blacks listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against Montgomery police defamed him personally. However, Sullivan DIDN'T HAVE TO PROVE THAT HE HARMED UNDER ALABAMA LAW.
Key Terms
NEW YORK TIMES v. SULLIVAN
This case is about a full-page ad alleging the arrest of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. for perjury in Alabama. The false statement's intention was to...
UNINIMITY DECISION
(for NYT)
The Court held that the 1st Amendment protects all the statement, even false ones, about the conduct of public official except when the statement i...
ACTUAL MALICE
It is the knowledge that the statements are FALSE or IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF ITS TRUTH OR FALSITY.
CASE COMMENTARY
In NYT v. Sullivan, the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment to respondent, since it failed to support finding that t...
JUSTICE GOLDBERG's concurrence
(joined by JUSTICE DOUGLAS)
The 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution afford to the Citizen and to the press an absolute, unconditional privilege to criticize official c...
JUSTICE BLACK
The effective functioning of a free government like ours depends largely on the force of an informed public opinion. Such an informed understanding...
Related Flashcard Decks
Study Tips
- Press F to enter focus mode for distraction-free studying
- Review cards regularly to improve retention
- Try to recall the answer before flipping the card
- Share this deck with friends to study together
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
NEW YORK TIMES v. SULLIVAN | This case is about a full-page ad alleging the arrest of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. for perjury in Alabama. The false statement's intention was to destroy King's effort to integrate public facilities and encourage black Americans to vote. Mr. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, issued a LIBEL SUIT against NYT and 4 blacks listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against Montgomery police defamed him personally. However, Sullivan DIDN'T HAVE TO PROVE THAT HE HARMED UNDER ALABAMA LAW. |
UNINIMITY DECISION | The Court held that the 1st Amendment protects all the statement, even false ones, about the conduct of public official except when the statement is made with actual malice. |
ACTUAL MALICE | It is the knowledge that the statements are FALSE or IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF ITS TRUTH OR FALSITY. |
CASE COMMENTARY | In NYT v. Sullivan, the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment to respondent, since it failed to support finding that the statements were made with actual malice or that related to respondent. |
JUSTICE GOLDBERG's concurrence | The 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution afford to the Citizen and to the press an absolute, unconditional privilege to criticize official conduct despite the harm, which may flow from excesses and abuses. |
JUSTICE BLACK | The effective functioning of a free government like ours depends largely on the force of an informed public opinion. Such an informed understanding depends of course, on the freedom people have to applaud or to criticize the way public employees do their jobs, from the least to the most important. |