1964: New York Times vs. Sullivan
February 23, 2023
The Supreme Court wrote that statements made in relation to a public official plaintiff have to be false and written with “‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
— William Brennan
In 1960, The New York Times published an advertisement supporting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and denouncing local officials for the oppression of Black citizens. The advertisement, named “Heed their Rising Voices,” stated: “Again and again the Southern violators have answered Dr. King’s peaceful protests with intimida-tion and violence.”
By “Southern violators,” they are referring to Southern politicians.
The advertisement contained several inaccuracies, so a Montgomery public safety commissioner sued The New York Times for defamation, as well as a group of Black ministers mentioned in the ad.
A jury trial ruled in favor of the commissioner, and the Supreme Court of Alabama upheld this decision, writing that “[t]he First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect libelous publications.”
The Times appealed and when the Supreme Court reviewed the case, they ruled 9-0 in favor of the New York Times.
The Supreme Court wrote that statements made in relation to a public official plaintiff have to be false and written with “‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Even though there were minor inaccuracies in The New York Times advertisement, the commissioner could not prove that these statements were made recklessly or knowing that they were false.
What this means for free speech: Just because an article was interpreted in a certain way (maliciously), that does not mean that author intended it to be understood that way.