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. Adams v. Jefferson determined that pursuing charges of libel is unconstitutional. Adams v. Jefferson determined that pursuing charges of libel is unconstitutional. 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.
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.
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.
To understand how this ruling expanded freedom of speech while limiting a public official's ability to press for libel, let's break it down:
1. Start by researching the case of New York Times v. Sullivan. This landmark Supreme Court case took place in 1964.
2. Understand the background: In 1960, The New York Times published an advertisement that criticized certain actions of the Montgomery, Alabama police department during the civil rights movement. L.B. Sullivan, a city commissioner, sued the newspaper for defamation (libel), claiming that the advertisement contained false and damaging statements about him.
3. Learn the ruling's outcome: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of The New York Times, establishing an influential legal standard for libel against public officials.
4. Research the key principle established by the ruling: The court ruled that the First Amendment protects the publication of false statements about public officials unless the statements were made with "actual malice." This means that a public official who wants to pursue charges of libel must prove that the false statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
5. Understand the significance: This ruling expanded the freedom of speech by creating a higher threshold for public officials to win libel suits against media organizations or individuals criticizing them. It recognized that criticism of public officials is an essential part of public debate and political discourse, and therefore provided greater protection for the free expression of ideas and opinions.
In summary, New York Times v. Sullivan expanded freedom of speech by requiring public officials to prove "actual malice" in order to successfully pursue charges of libel, thereby providing greater protection for criticism and discussion of public officials.