![]() Moreover, the Court made clear that the public official suing for damages had to prove the existence of actual malice “by convincing clarity.” Court said advertisement had insufficient evidence of 'actual malice' The Court intended for this to be a high standard, one that public officials would have a hard time satisfying, one that required conduct by the news media that went beyond just negligence. To protect open discourse, the Court adopted the “ actual malice” test, meaning that no public official could win damages for libel without proving that the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The Supreme Court reversed the libel judgment and created the concept of actual malice. had been arrested in Alabama, four times instead of seven, and details of police actions at Alabama State College.) This is the New York Times advertisement that prompted a libel lawsuit by a city commissioner in Montgomery County who oversaw police. (The advertisement had gotten wrong the number of times Martin Luther King Jr. opined that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open” and said that vehement criticism and even mistakes were part of the price a democratic society must pay for freedom. Writing for the majority, Justice William J. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and dismissed the damage award. Court dismissed damage award, adopted actual malice standard A jury awarded him $500,000 in damages, an enormous sum at the time. Under Alabama law, Sullivan only needed to prove that there were mistakes and that they likely harmed his reputation. Sullivan, an elected city commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, whose duties included supervision of the local police. by Alabama law enforcement, carried the names of prominent civil rights activists, including actors, writers, ministers, and other prominent Americans. The advertisement, protesting the treatment of the Rev. Sullivan began as a lawsuit against the newspaper for mistakes in a full-page civil rights fundraising editorial advertisement in 1960 entitled “ Heed Their Rising Voices.” Sullivan sued paper for mistakes in civil rights advertisement This landmark decision constitutionalized libel law and arguably saved the civil rights movement. The decision established the important principle that the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press may protect libelous words about a public official in order to foster vigorous debate about government and public affairs. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court reversed a libel damages judgment against the New York Times. (AP Photo/Gene Herrick, used with permission from The Associated Press) Abernathy, center, is booked by city police Lt. Martin Luther King Jr., accompanied by Rev. The Supreme Court established that public officials must meet a higher standard for libel judgments and show that the publisher acted with knowledge that something was false. ![]() ![]() The ad got some facts wrong, including the number of times Martin Luther King Jr. The New York Times was sued by the Montgomery, Alabama, city commissioner for errors in a civil rights advertisement. Sullivan case led to new protections against publishers who, in their criticism of government, are sued by government officials for libel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |