Description of event

A ad that appeared in the New York Times in support of civil rights marchers and criticized Sullivan, the segregationist Police Chief of Montgomery, Alabama, for his unfair treatment of the marchers.

Description of incident

Sullivan sued the New York Times Co. and won massive damages equaling $500, 000 because of minor factual errors in the article.

Results of incident

The Supreme Court reversed the libel judgment, saying that the First Amendment protected "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" criticism of public officials, at least unless it could be proved that the critic was deliberately lying or showed "reckless disregard" for the truth.

Somewhat simplistically, there are four elements essential to a cause of action for defamation:

(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another;

(2) an unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;

(3) if the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and

(4) damage to the reputation of the plaintiff, whether actual or presumed by law.

 

Larry Dixon and Ethics

Larry Dixon and Tootie (Hobson) Listen while you read.

New York Times v. Sullivan

New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) is the leading case on the question of defamation liability for media defendants. At common law, no fault or intent on the part of a media defendant had to be demonstrated in order to hold it liable for defamation, so long as the case met the four Basic Elements of a Cause of Action for Defamation.

However, First Amendment concerns led the Supreme Court to declare in 1964 that public officials and public figures cannot recover for an alleged defamation unless they can prove both that the statement was false, and that the statement was made with "actual malice."

Actual malice does not mean "spite" or "ill will." The Supreme Court defined "actual malice" as knowledge that the statement was false, or reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of the statement. Reckless disregard is proven by demonstrating that the defendant entertained serious doubts as the truthfulness of the statement.

The Supreme Court defined public figures to include both public officials and public figures. Public figures include both persons who have achieved persuasive fame or notoriety (such as celebrities), and persons who voluntarily assume a central role in a particular public controversy. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974). A person who becomes a public figure by the second method is considered to be a public figure only with respect to the limited range of issues involved in the public controversy. At this time, it is not yet known whether courts will view persons who become prominent only on BBSs or other on-line systems as public figures within the context of those systems.

The Supreme Court also stated that First Amendment concerns were not as important when the plaintiff is a private person. When a private person is defamed about a matter of public concern, a lesser degree of  fault must be proven. In these cases, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made the defamatory statement at least negligently. In addition, in such cases, a plaintiff can only recover damages for "actual injury," meaning that punitive damages cannot be awarded.

The Students