CramX Logo
Back to FlashcardsLaw / New York Times v. Sullivan Case Study

New York Times v. Sullivan Case Study

Law6 CardsCreated 9 months ago

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.

Report

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.

Rate to track your progress ✦

Tap or swipe ↕ to flip
Swipe ←→Navigate
1/6

Key Terms

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...

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

TermDefinition

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
(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 is made with actual malice.
Under this standard, Sullivan Case collapsed.

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
(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 conduct despite the harm, which may flow from excesses and abuses.
The Constitution [1st and 14th Amendments] accords citizens and press an unconditional freedom to criticize official conduct. Therefore, allegedly defamatory statements related to official conduct, the judgments for libel cannot constitutionally be sustained.

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.