How has one specific Supreme Court ruling expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official’s ability to press for libel?(1 point)
Responses
New York Times v. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.
New York Times v. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.
New York Times v. United States determined that libel is allowed in certain instances.
New York Times v. United States determined that libel is allowed in certain instances.
Near v. Minnesota determined that libel is allowed if it serves the interest of the public.
Near v. Minnesota determined that libel is allowed if it serves the interest of the public.
Adams v. Jefferson determined that pursuing charges of libel is unconstitutional.
New York Times v. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official. This ruling expanded freedom of speech by setting a higher standard for public officials to bring libel lawsuits against the media. It emphasized the importance of protecting public debate and criticism of government officials, and made it more difficult for public officials to silence their critics through libel claims.
The correct response is:
New York Times v. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.
The correct answer is: New York Times v. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.
In order to understand how the Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official's ability to press for libel, we need to delve into the details of the case and the ruling.
New York Times v. Sullivan was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1964. The case was brought by L.B. Sullivan, a public official, against the New York Times, claiming that a newspaper advertisement criticizing the police's handling of civil rights protests in Alabama had defamed him.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled in favor of the New York Times. The court held that in order for a public official to succeed in a libel action, they must prove that the statement was made with "actual malice" – that is, with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
This ruling expanded freedom of speech by introducing a higher standard of proof for public officials in libel cases. It made it more difficult for public officials to sue for defamation, as they now had to show that the statement was not only false but also made with actual malice.
In practical terms, this ruling provided greater protection for the press and individuals who criticize public officials. It emphasized the importance of freedom of speech and the press, recognizing that robust public debate about government actions and policies is essential for a functioning democracy.
To determine this answer, it is important to have an understanding of the Supreme Court case and its ruling. Researching and reading about New York Times v. Sullivan would provide more comprehensive information about the case and its implications on freedom of speech and libel law.