Question

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.

Answer 1

[AI-generated answer — Bot GPT 3.5]

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 limiting a public official's ability to press for libel, as it established a higher standard for proving libel against public officials. It offered greater protection for speech that criticized public officials and made it more difficult for them to use libel lawsuits as a means of silencing their critics.