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. 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. 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. This ruling expanded freedom of speech by setting a higher standard for public officials to sue for libel. It made it more difficult for public officials to restrict criticism and hold individuals accountable for making false statements about them, thereby protecting free speech rights.
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.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that public officials must prove that false statements were made with "actual malice" - meaning with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth - in order to successfully sue for defamation or libel. This ruling expanded freedom of speech by providing stronger protection for individuals who criticize public officials, making it more difficult for public officials to curtail freedom of speech through defamation lawsuits.
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."
In order to understand how this Supreme Court ruling expanded freedom of speech, we can examine the case and its impact.
In the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court established an important precedent for libel law that significantly limited a public official's ability to press for libel charges. The case involved an advertisement published by the New York Times that criticized the actions of the police department in Montgomery, Alabama, during the civil rights movement. The advertisement contained some factual errors, leading the city commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, to sue the newspaper for libel.
However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times and Sullivan's libel claim was rejected. The Court held that for a public official to successfully pursue a libel suit, they must show that the statement was made with "actual malice," meaning that the defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
This ruling expanded freedom of speech by setting a higher bar for public officials to bring libel claims. It recognized that criticism of governmental officials, even if it contains factual errors, is protected under the First Amendment. By requiring proof of actual malice, the Court aimed to prevent public officials from using libel suits as a way to suppress criticism and free expression.
Therefore, the Supreme Court's ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official's ability to press for libel through the establishment of the actual malice standard.