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 Adams v. Jefferson determined that pursuing charges of libel is unconstitutional. Adams v. Jefferson determined that pursuing charges of libel is unconstitutional. 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. 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. This ruling expanded freedom of speech by setting a higher standard for public officials to sue for defamation. It limited their ability to use libel lawsuits to silence or punish critics, as they would have to prove that the statements made with actual malice - knowingly false or with reckless disregard for the truth. This ruling therefore protected the rights of individuals to express their opinions and criticisms of public officials without fear of facing unfounded legal actions.
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. This ruling expanded freedom of speech by setting a higher standard for public officials to bring libel charges, making it more difficult for them to suppress criticism or unfavorable statements.
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 Supreme Court ruling expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official's ability to press for libel, we need to look at the case of New York Times v. Sullivan.
In this case, Sullivan, a public official, sued the New York Times for publishing an advertisement that contained factual inaccuracies about him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, establishing an important principle. They stated that public officials must prove "actual malice" - meaning they must show that the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
This ruling expanded freedom of speech because it established a higher threshold for public officials to succeed in libel cases. It protected the media and individuals from being overly burdened by the fear of lawsuits for simply making honest mistakes or expressing opinions about public officials. By requiring proof of actual malice, the ruling limited the ability of public officials to use libel lawsuits as a means to suppress criticism or dissent, thus safeguarding the freedom of speech.