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. 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. 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.
New York Times v. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.
Which statement best analyzes how Lemon v. Kurtzman clarified the meaning of the First Amendment?(1 point) Responses It introduced the idea that religion should be separate from government. It introduced the idea that religion should be separate from government. It set the standard for what it meant for government to violate the Establishment Clause. It set the standard for what it meant for government to violate the Establishment Clause. It decided that the Establishment Clause enabled the government to give funding to all religious organizations equally. It decided that the Establishment Clause enabled the government to give funding to all religious organizations equally. It determined that the Establishment Clause was not violated if funding was used for secular purposes.
It set the standard for what it meant for government to violate the Establishment Clause.
Which of the following best describes why the Supreme Court might limit the freedoms stated in the First Amendment?(1 point) Responses to prevent the incitement of violence to prevent the incitement of violence to censor hate speech to censor hate speech to preserve the freedom of religion to preserve the freedom of religion to protect other members of society
to protect other members of society
In which situation might freedom of religion be limited?(1 point) Responses A person takes a personal day from work due to a religious holiday. A person takes a personal day from work due to a religious holiday. A person breaks a policy of their employer to participate in a religious ceremony. A person breaks a policy of their employer to participate in a religious ceremony. A public school provides meal alternatives for students who do not eat meat for religious reasons. A public school provides meal alternatives for students who do not eat meat for religious reasons. A church holds a meeting on public property with the proper permits.
A person breaks a policy of their employer to participate in a religious ceremony.
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 explain how this ruling expanded freedom of speech, we need to understand the background. Prior to this ruling, public officials had a relatively low bar to prove libel. They only needed to show that a false statement was made about them which harmed their reputation. This made it easier for public officials to sue and potentially silence critics.
In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects certain statements about public officials, even if they are false, as long as they are made without actual malice. Actual malice means that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
This ruling expanded freedom of speech by placing a higher burden of proof on public officials when bringing libel cases. It recognized that robust and uninhibited debate about public officials is essential for democracy, and that false statements, even if damaging to reputation, should be protected unless the speaker acted with knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.
As a result of this ruling, public officials have a more limited ability to sue for libel and are held to a higher standard of proof. This has contributed to the protection of free speech and the ability of individuals to criticize those in power without fear of legal retaliation.