New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
United States Supreme Court
376 U.S. 254 (1964)

FACTS: This is a civil suit in which the plaintiff (Sullivan) is a city official in charge of the police department in Montgomery, Alabama. The defendant was a newspaper (the New York Times) that had published an advertisement that had criticized the manner in which the police department had handled several civil rights protests. Sullivan alleged that he had been libeled by statements in the ad that were critical of the police. Defendants admitted that some of the statements contained in the ad were not accurate descriptions of events which had occurred in Montgomery, but argued that their statements were protected by the first amendment.

JUDICIAL HISTORY: A trial court jury found the newspaper guilty of liable and awarded $500,000 in damages. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed.

DISPOSITION: The lower court judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to apply the actual malice standard.

ISSUES: 

Was it a violation of the 1st amendment  (as applied to the states through the 14th amendments) for Alabama to authorize the awarding of damages against the New York Times for publishing the advertisement in question without requiring Sullivan to prove actual malice?  YES (9-0)

PRECEDENTS:

• It is a violation of the 1st (as applied to the states through the 14th amendments) for a state to assess damages for liable  for criticism of official conduct by a public official without a showing of absolute malice (knowledge that the material is false or a reckless disregard for the truth).
• The 1st (as applied to the states through the 14th amendments) protects political messages that are published in the form of paid advertisements.

STANDARD/TEST APPLIED:

Actual Malice Test: Plaintiff must establish that the defendant had knowledge that the material was false or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

OPINION OF COURT Chief Justice Brennan (with Warren, Clark, White, Stewart, and Harlan)

• The 1st amendment applies to the advertisement in question because it is editorial rather than commercial in nature.
• Alabama's "libelous per se" rule violates the 1st and 14th amendments when applied to publications about public officials.
  • First amendment designed to insure uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate on public issues.
  • State law is not saved by providing for defense of truth. A defense for erroneous statements honestly made is no less essential here than is the requirement of proof of guilty knowledge.
  • Self censorship occurs where there is doubt about truth of item or being able to prove the truth in court.
• Public officials cannot recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to their official conduct unless the statement was made with "actual malice."
  • Actual malice" is defined as knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
• In reviewing the evidence the court finds that the proof presented at the trial did not establish actual malice because there is no evidence that the paper was aware of any erroneous statements or were in any way reckless.
• Court follows Sweeney v. Patterson and distinguishes Valentine v. Chrestensen.