New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, was a landmark United States
Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be
met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be
defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights
campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions
supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the
plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the
statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless
disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of
proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's
knowledge and intentions, such cases—when they involve public
figures—rarely prevail. Before this decision, there were nearly
US $300 million in libel actions outstanding against news organizations
from the Southern states, and it had caused many publications to exercise
great caution when reporting on civil rights, for fear that they might be held
accountable for libel. After The New York Times prevailed in this case, news
organizations were free to report the widespread disorder and civil rights
infringements. The Times maintained that the case against it was brought to
intimidate news organizations and prevent them from reporting illegal
actions of public employees in the South as they attempted to continue to support
segregation. Background of the case
On March 29, 1960, The New York Times carried a full-page advertisement titled
"Heed Their Rising Voices", which solicited funds to defend Martin Luther
King, Jr. against an Alabama perjury indictment. The advertisement described
actions against civil rights protesters, some of them inaccurately, some of which
involved the police force of Montgomery, Alabama. Discrepancies were generally
minor. Referring to the Alabama State Police, the advertisement stated: "They
have arrested [King] seven times..." However, at that point he had been
arrested four times. Although African-American students staged a
demonstration on the State Capitol steps, they sang the National Anthem and
not My Country, 'Tis of Thee. Although the Montgomery Public Safety
commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, was not named in the advertisement, the
inaccurate criticism of actions by the police was considered defamatory to
Sullivan as well, due to his duty to supervise the police department.
Alabama law denied a public officer recovery of punitive damages in a libel
action concerning their official conduct unless they first made a written demand
for a public retraction and the defendant failed or refused to comply,
so Sullivan sent such a request. The Times did not publish a retraction in
response to the demand. Instead it wrote a letter stating, among other things,
that "we ... are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way
reflect on you," and "you might, if you desire, let us know in what respect you
claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you". Sullivan
did not respond but instead filed a libel suit a few days later. He also
sued four African American ministers mentioned in the ad, specifically Ralph
Abernathy, S.S. Seay, Sr., Fred Shuttlesworth, and Joseph Lowery.
Sullivan won $500,000 in an Alabama court judgment.
The Times did subsequently publish a retraction of the advertisement upon the
demand of Governor John Patterson of Alabama, who alleged the publication
charged him with "grave misconduct and ... improper actions and omissions as
Governor of Alabama and ex officio chairman of the State Board of Education
of Alabama." When asked to explain why there had been a retraction for the
Governor but not for Sullivan, the Secretary of the Times testified: "We
did that because we didn't want anything that was published by the Times to be a
reflection on the State of Alabama and the Governor was, as far as we could
see, the embodiment of the State of Alabama and the proper representative of
the state and, furthermore, we had by that time learned more of the actual
facts which the ad purported to recite and, finally, the ad did refer to the
action of the state authorities and the Board of Education presumably of which
the Governor is the ex officio chairman....". However, the Secretary
also testified he did not think that "any of the language in there referred
to Mr. Sullivan." Louis M. Loeb, a partner at the firm of
Lord Day & Lord served as chief counsel to the Times from 1948 to 1967,
successfully argued this case before the United States Supreme Court. The court's
ruling held that news publications could not be sued for libel by public figures
unless the plaintiffs were able to establish actual malice in the false
reporting of a news story. The case, which had been brought against the Times
by Montgomery, Alabama public safety commissioner L.B. Sullivan, allowed
newspapers to report on the widespread chaos and police abuse accompanying the
Civil Rights Movement. Loeb later called the libel cases he argued for The New
York Times "the heaviest responsibility I’ve ever had since I began practicing
law." [1] The court's decision
The Court ruled for The Times, 9–0. The rule of law applied by the Alabama
courts was found constitutionally deficient for failure to provide
safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press, as required by the First and
Fourteenth Amendment. The decision further held that even with the proper
safeguards, the evidence presented in this case was insufficient to support a
judgment for Sullivan. In sum the court ruled that "the First Amendment protects
the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public
officials except when statements are made with actual malice."
= Actual malice = The Court held that a public official
suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with
actual malice. In this context, the phrase refers to knowledge or reckless
lack of investigation, rather than its ordinary meaning of malicious intent. In
his concurring opinion, Justice Black explained that "'[m]alice,' even as
defined by the Court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard
to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent
protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly
does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First
Amendment." The term "malice" was not newly invented
for the case; it came from existing libel law. In many jurisdictions,
including Alabama, proof of "actual malice" was required in order for
punitive damages to be awarded, or for other increased penalties. Since a
writer's malicious intent is hard to prove, proof that the writer knowingly
published a falsehood was generally accepted as proof of malice, under the
assumption that only a person with ill intent would knowingly publish something
false. In Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Printing Co., 254 N.Y. 95, similarly, the court
said: "The plaintiff alleges that this criticism of him and of his work was not
fair and was not honest; it was published with actual malice, ill will
and spite. If he establishes this allegation, he has made out a cause of
action. No comment or criticism, otherwise libelous, is fair or just
comment on a matter of public interest if it be made through actual ill will
and malice." In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the
Supreme Court adopted the term "actual malice," giving it constitutional
significance. International comparisons
The rule that somebody alleging defamation should have to prove untruth,
rather than that the defendant should have to prove the truth of a statement,
stood as a departure from the previous common law. In England, the development
was specifically rejected in Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd
and it was also rejected in Canada in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto
and more recently in Grant v. Torstar Corp.. In Australia, the outcome of the
case was followed in Theophanous v. The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd, but
Theophanous was itself overruled by the High Court of Australia in Lange v
Australian Broadcasting Corporation 189 CLR 520.
50th anniversary In 2014, on the 50th anniversary of the
ruling, The New York Times released an editorial in which it stated the
background of the case, laid out the rationale for the Supreme Court
decision, critically reflected on the state of freedom of the press 50 years
after the ruling and compared the state of freedom of the press in the United
States with other nations. The editorial board of The New York Times heralded the
Sullivan decision as "the clearest and most forceful defense of press freedom
in American history" and added: The ruling was revolutionary, because
the court for the first time rejected virtually any attempt to squelch
criticism of public officials—even if false—as antithetical to “the central
meaning of the First Amendment.” Today, our understanding of freedom of the
press comes in large part from the Sullivan case. Its core observations and
principles remain unchallenged, even as the Internet has turned everyone into a
worldwide publisher—capable of calling public officials instantly to account
for their actions, and also of ruining reputations with the click of a mouse.
Later developments Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S.
130 held that public figures who are not public officials may still sue news
organizations if they disseminate information about them which is
recklessly gathered and unchecked. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S.
323: Actual malice not necessary for defamation of private person if
negligence is present. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S.
46: Extending standard to intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1: Existing law is sufficient to
protect free speech without recognizing opinion privilege against libel claims.
See also New York Times Co. v. Tasini
New York Times Co. v. United States List of United States Supreme Court
cases, volume 376 Notes
Further reading Burnett, Nicholas F.. "New York Times v.
Sullivan". In Parker, Richard A.. Free Speech on Trial: Communication
Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of
Alabama Press. pp. 116–129. ISBN 0-8173-1301-X.
Lewis, Anthony. Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment.
New York: Random House. ISBN 0-394-58774-X.
Fireside, Harvey. New York Times V. Sullivan: Affirming Freedom of the
Press. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7660-1085-7.
Lithwick, Dahlia. "Target Practice: Justice Scalia sets his sights on New
York Times Co. v. Sullivan". Slate. Retrieved 2013-03-25.
Watson, John C.. "Times v. Sullivan: Landmark or Land Mine on the Road to
Ethical Journalism?". Journal of Mass Media Ethics 17: 3–19.
doi:10.1207/S15327728JMME1701_02. External links
Text of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 is available from: Findlaw
Justia U of Wisconsin BC OYEZ – New York Times v. Sullivan
Booknotes interview with Anthony Lewis on Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and
the First Amendment, October 20, 1991.