Mr. Beat presents...
Supreme Court Briefs
New York City March 29, 1960
The New York Times publishes a full-page advertisement called “Heed Their Rising
Voices,” which aimed to shine a spotlight on the persecution of and violence against civil rights
protestors throughout the South. It specifically talks trash about the Montgomery, Alabama police
force, saying that they had arrested Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. seven times and that “truckloads”
of them had stormed the Alabama State College. So uh…yeah…the ad had definitely stretched the
truth. When Montgomery’s police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, saw the ad, he was like “what
the heck?!?” He viewed it as a personal attack on him and his entire police force.
Even though the ad didn’t specifically name Sullivan, he decided to write the
New York Times anyway, asking the newspaper to publish a retraction of the ad. In other words,
Sullivan wanted the New York Times to take it all back, man. Take it back! (Take it back! clip) and
admit to publishing false information. Well, the New York Times issued no such retraction. Instead,
its lawyers wrote Sullivan a nice little letter that said the newspaper had no good reason to
publish a retraction. Specifically, their letter said, “we…are somewhat puzzled as to
how you think the statements in any way reflect on you,” adding, “you might, if you desire,
let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you.”
Uh-huh. Sullivan didn’t like that so much, either. He sued the New York Times,
saying the newspaper broke Alabama’s law for libel, a type of written defamation that hurt
the reputation of someone or something. He also sued four African American ministers mentioned in
the ad. After this, the New York Times did issue a retraction, but only for the Governor of Alabama,
John Patterson….not Sullivan. In the Circuit Court of Montgomery County,
Sullivan only had to prove that the New York Times published mistakes and that they probably
hurt his reputation. The court sided with Sullivan, ordering the New York Times to
award him with $500,000 in damages, which is nearly $5 million in today’s money. The New
York Times appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, but it agreed with the lower court. After this,
the newspaper appealed again, this time to the SUPREME Supreme Court, who agreed to hear oral
arguments in January 1964. The New York Times, of course, argued that the freedom of speech
and freedom of the press parts of the First Amendment protected their right to publish
that ad. It also argued that Alabama’s libel law specifically went against the First Amendment.
The Court agreed. On March 9, 1964, it had announced that it had unanimously sided with the
New York Times. And yep, it argued that Alabama’s libel law was unconstitutional, saying it went
against the First Amendment. Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion. He stressed
that a huge freaking point of the First Amendment was to criticize those working in government.
Therefore, the threshold should be pretty high when it comes to restricting such speech.
Now, that all said, the Court acknowledged that libel, as well as all defamation, should still
be taken into serious consideration. In order to still protect the reputations of public figures,
it came up with the “actual malice” test. Basically, if a public figure could prove
in court that the defamation against them was made “with knowledge that it was false or with
reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” then they should win damages. The Court
also said a public official seeking damages had to prove the defendant’s defamatory message hurt them
specifically. In other words, they couldn’t win damages if the defamatory message was just broadly
about government policy. Not only that, the public official had the burden of proof, yo. The
public official was the one who had to prove the defamatory message was made with “actual malice.”
New York Times v. Sullivan was a huge victory for both freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
Prior to this decision, states handled defamation, and laws that handled how public figures could
recover damages for having their reputations hurt were different across the country. The Sullivan
decision effectively standardized defamation, putting the First Amendment at the forefront,
baby. In the following years, the Supreme Court would continue to expand media protections from
lawsuits not just from government officials, but ANY public figures. Because of this case,
if you’re well known in society, and someone makes up stuff about you in the media,
it’s going to be pretty difficult for you to win damages from them in court.
I’ll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!
If Dominion Voting Systems wins its defamation lawsuit against Fox News,
it will be because they were able to prove Fox News reported about the 2020 presidential
election’s Big Lie with actual malice. We’ll see if that happens. So which Supreme Court
case should I cover next for this series? Let me know down below. Thanks for watching buddy!