Transcript for: Overview of New York Times Company Case
[Narrator] Freedom of
speech has its limits. Those limits were tested in New York Times Company versus Sullivan. In 1960, a civil rights
organization took out a full page advertisement
in the New York Times. The advertisement detailed
a "wave of terror" perpetrated by civil rights opponents. Amongst other horrors, the advertisement accused the Alabama police department of terrorizing student protesters. In particular the advertisement claimed police had padlocked the
students' dining hall "in an attempt to starve
them into submission". The problem was that the advertisement contained a number of
factual inaccuracies. The Alabama police never padlocked the student dining hall and
several other statements in the advertisement were
either false or exaggerated. The advertisement offended L. B. Sullivan who served as the Montgomery
commissioner of public affairs. Sullivan felt that the advertisement harmed his reputation
because it was his job to supervise the police department. Sullivan sued the New York Times in Alabama State Court for libel, which is the legal term
for defamatory speech published in writing. The trial judge applying
Alabama law determined that the advertisement
was libelous per se, which meant that Sullivan
didn't have to show actual harm to his reputation
to recover damages. The jury rendered a verdict for Sullivan and the judge ordered the New York Times to pay Sullivan $500,000 in damages. The Alabama Supreme Court
affirmed the judgment rejecting the New York Times' argument that the First Amendment
protected it from liability. The New York Times petitioned the United States
Supreme Court for review. The court granted cert
to consider the question of whether the First Amendment allows a public official to
bring a defamation action for false statements about public issues. The Court unanimously held
that the First Amendment, which applied to Alabama
through the 14th Amendment, restricts a trial court's ability to award damages in defamation actions brought by public officials. Justice Brennan wrote
the majority opinion. Brennan showed that case precedents establish a firm commitment to robust, uninhibited debate on public issues. Brennan explained that
often public debates will feature "vehement, caustic, "and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks "on government and public officials". Those debates may even
include false information. But the First Amendment allows
for all kinds of speech, even speech that is
antagonistic and untruthful. The United States belief in free speech is so strong, in fact,
that the law prefers factual errors over
discouraging free discussion. Brennan noted that the
threat of an expensive civil lawsuit can handicap free expression just as much as criminal punishment. However the Court carved
out an important exception. If a public official can show that a false statement was
made with actual malice, then the official can prevail
on a defamation claim. To show actual malice
an official must prove that the defendant knew
the statement was false or otherwise acted with reckless disregard of the statement's truth or falsity. Reviewing the evidence, Brennan concluded that the New York Times didn't know that the advertisement
contained inaccuracies. Therefore the Times
hadn't acted maliciously against Sullivan and
couldn't be held liable for defamation. The Court reversed the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court. Justices Black and Goldberg wrote separate concurring opinions each joined by Justice Douglas. Justice Black agreed that
the press was protected from defamation claims
brought by public officials. But Black argued for extending the immunity even further. He wrote that the press's
First Amendment right was absolute and unconditional. In Black's view, the
Constitution should shield the press from defamation
claims by public officials, even if the press acts with actual malice. Justice Goldberg
concurred in the judgment. Like Justice Black, Goldberg also rejected the majority's exception for statements made with actual malice. Goldberg agreed with
Black that the press's First Amendment privilege was absolute, even if criticisms are made maliciously. New York Times Company versus Sullivan is important because it
established the requirement of actual malice in defamation suits brought by public officials. To be clear, this standard
only applies to claims arising from speech
about public officials. The actual malice rule
does not apply to speech directed toward private individuals. The significance of Sullivan has only grown in recent years. Communications technology,
particularly the Internet, has increased the scope of
debates on public issues. These important debates are
protected and encouraged by the Court's landmark
decision in Sullivan.