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. United States determined that libel is allowed in certain instances. New York Times v. United States determined that libel is allowed in certain instances. 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. 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 limiting a public official's ability to press for libel, as it raised the standard of proof required to prove libel against public figures. This made it more difficult for public officials to use libel laws to suppress or punish criticism, thereby protecting the freedom of speech.
