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. 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. 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. 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 prove defamation, thus protecting individuals' rights to criticize and scrutinize government officials without fear of being sued for libel.
