Summary: Sullivan V. New York Times Co.

The Plaintiff, Sullivan (Plaintiff) sued the Defendant, the New York Times Co. (Defendant), for printing an advertisement about the civil rights movement in the south that defamed the Plaintiff.
New York Times vs. Sullivan
Defamation can be defined as a written or spoken statement that subjects someone to hatred or ridicule or injures a person’s occupation or business. This case was decided on March 9th, 1964 by unanimous decision. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court and concurrences were written by Justice Black and Justice Goldberg. The question before the court involved the first amendment freedom of speech and press and whether it protected defamatory false statements concerning public officials. Lester Bruce Sullivan was
elected as the Commissioner of Public Affairs in Alabama during the civil rights movement. He was commissioner for the police department cemetery and department of scales. In 1960, there were a number of civil rights protest slash demonstrations in Montgomery. The New York Times that we know today published a one page advertisement to raise money in defense of Martin Luther King Jr.
The ad was titled, “Heed Their Rising Voices” and was endorsed by a number of individuals. In the ad the ad The New York Times made allegations against the police department. Many of the allegation were false including the amount of times Martin Luther King was arrested in Alabama, but one of the most serious allegations concerned the expulsion of nine college students. The ad stated the students were expelled from college for leading a march on the state capital when in actuality the students were expelled for participating in a sit-in, which was illegal in Alabama. The ad also alleged that the police padlocked the dining facility where the protest took place in an effort to starve the students but the facility was never padlocked. The ad itself did not mention Sullivan directly and only decided to bring suit after Merton Nachman, a libel lawyer in Montgomery, told him he could recover against The New York Times. Sullivan felt he was defamed because the statements made about the police men under him, reflected negatively on him. The Alabama law at the time was, “[T]he law…implies legal injury from the bare fact of publication itself falsity and malice are presumed, general damages need not be alleged or proved but are
presumed…” Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed because of publication was considered libel per se, meaning general damages were presumed and that there was no need to prove any special damages. Sullivan won the case against the Times and won a $500,000 judgement against the Times.

Sullivan brought suit against the Times under Alabama’s libel statute which required that a public official request a retraction before suing. Sullivan requested The New York Times retract the ad but the New York Times refused
New York Times posted an advertisement in the paper.
It is about the Montgomery city commissioner, L.B. Sullivan. The advertisement criticized Sullivan on how he treated Martin Luther King and other civil right movements. Sullivan claimed that his reputation was hurt and that he needed money for the damages done. It could not be proven that Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed. The suit to the circuit court in Montgomery County and Sullivan was awarded $500,000 dollars. The ruling approved by the Alabama Supreme Court and then headed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Justices voted 9 to 0 in favor of the New York Times Co. Once the Court defined malic, Sullivan’s case didn’t have a chance of winning. Malice: the desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of hostile impulse or out of deep-seated
meanness.
Reasons for decisions
All publications have protection under the law unless actual malice is shown. 1st and 14th amendment limit the power that the state courts have on giving money for damages.
Impact of the case
Now no more cases will arise about publication problems with malice, or if they do it will be easily solved. New standard of malice are now in effect for all states. It kept cases like this from arising during and after the civil rights movements. It gave more power to the first amendment and the freedom of speech and press.
Concerning opinions
Justice Black believes that the states shouldn’t be able to give out money for damages. Justice Goldberg thought that there should be no more malice and no restrictions of freedoms. Goldberg believes the founding fathers made the constitution to have no limits on speech and press.