Summary Of The Court Case Of New York Times Co. V. Sullivan

Issue:
The court case New York Times Co v. Sullivan was a significant case in 1964. The plaintiff, L.B. Sullivan, the Commissioner of the City of Montgomery, Alabama sued the defendant, The New York Times (along with four other African American Alabama clergymen) in an Alabama court, for the printing of an advertisement in the March 29, 1960 edition of the newspaper over libel accusations.
The full page ad titled “Heeding Their Rising Voices” condemned the actions of violence that were occurring in Montgomery, Alabama. The ad was published with the intent of raising support for the civil rights movement, as well as fundraising for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s legal team (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had just been arrested and sent to jail for
The Supreme Court held that the New York Times statements were protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. According to the constitution with freedom of speech, all comments and opinions are allowed to be expressed- even if they may sound disgraceful and damaging. Since the hearing had failed to take into account the defendants First Amendment rights, the Fourteenth Amendment (which basically states that no state can deny a citizen of their constitutional rights) was broken as well.
With this case, the Supreme Court decided that when it came to public officials there needed to be some sort of action that allowed criticism of conduct, without it being automatically considered libel. They created the actual malice standard that basically said; with public officials, citizens would have unconditional freedom to criticize official conduct and public affairs, unless actual malice was intended.
Since there were no precedents for this case, the actual malice standard was monumental. For the first time, the Supreme Court was faced with a case that questioned the constitutionality of the current protections of speech for the press, particularly in the criticism against a public officials conduct.
How exactly did the decision of the Alabama court to allow the plaintiff to claim libel, with no proof, defy the constitution? With this new standard, what criticism could be claimed as libel, when it came to the actions and conduct of a public official? Most importantly what exactly is considered actual malice? These questions were important in helping form the guidelines for the actual malice standard, that eventually helped settle this case.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the state of Alabama could not apply their libel law to this court case, since it infringed upon the defendants First Amendment rights. The Alabama court was in the wrong for presuming that libel had occurred. In the media, if someone is able to presume libel and allowed to take legal action with that claim, the idea of “chilled speech” is reinforced. Chilled speech in media is dangerous though, because if the media, our news outlet, becomes too afraid to state their opinions (due to the fact that government can interfere and make any claims they wish, since no proof of libel is needed) a wave of “fake news” starts