How has one specific Supreme Court ruling expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official’s ability to press for libel?(1 point)ResponsesNew 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 while limiting a public official's ability to press for libel, we need to look at the background of the case.
In 1960, the New York Times published an advertisement criticizing the actions of the police department during civil rights demonstrations in Montgomery, Alabama. The advertisement contained some factual errors and indirectly defamed the local police commissioner, L. B. Sullivan. As a result, Sullivan filed a libel lawsuit against the New York Times.
The Supreme Court case, known as New York Times v. Sullivan, was ultimately decided in 1964. The Court ruled that in order for a public official (such as Sullivan) to succeed in a libel lawsuit, they must prove "actual malice" on the part of the publication. "Actual malice" means that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
This ruling had significant implications for freedom of speech. It established a higher standard of proof for public officials to win libel cases, protecting the press and individuals exercising their freedom of expression. By requiring proof of "actual malice," the Supreme Court created a barrier to prevent public officials from easily suppressing criticism or discouraging media investigative reporting.
In summary, New York Times v. Sullivan expanded freedom of speech by setting a higher burden of proof for public officials in libel cases. This ruling limited the ability of public officials to press for libel by requiring them to prove "actual malice" on the part of the publication.