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.
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. 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. 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 Supreme Court ruling expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official's ability to press for libel, we can take the following steps:
1. Start by researching the Supreme Court case of New York Times v. Sullivan. This case involved a full-page advertisement published in the New York Times that criticized the police's response to civil rights demonstrations. A public official mentioned in the ad, L.B. Sullivan, filed a libel lawsuit against the newspaper.
2. Look for details about the ruling. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court established an important precedent for libel cases involving public officials. The Court ruled that to successfully pursue a defamation claim against a media organization, public officials needed to prove "actual malice." This means they must show that the published statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
3. Consider how the ruling expanded freedom of speech. By requiring public officials to meet a higher standard to prove defamation, the Court effectively limited their ability to use libel lawsuits as a tool to silence or intimidate critics. It established a precedent that prioritizes the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and protects the press from retaliation by public figures.
In summary, the Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan expanded freedom of speech by setting a higher standard for proving libel in cases involving public officials. It required that actual malice be proven, providing greater protection to individuals expressing opinions or making critical statements about government officials.