Latest essay for this class... It had to be about an important Supreme Court Case and Civil Rights.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
[376 U.S. 254]
Warren Court, Decided 9-0, 3/9/1964
When eighteen-year old Emma Sullivan casually tweeted, "Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person, #heblowsalot,"[1] apparently she didn’t realize that under the Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, she might be held libel. Under the 1964 landmark decision, writing statements (or this case Tweeting), that tends to defame or tarnish a "public figure’s” reputation and are either knowingly false or made with a reckless disregard for their truthfulness, is libel. And yet, if you had mentioned that to Ms. Sullivan, she probably would have indigently responded by saying something like, “I can post whatever I want read First Amendment, you know… Freedom of Speech.” In past challenges of libel before the Supreme Court, both Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)[2] and Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952)[3], the Court, decided that the libelous statements were outside the protection of the First Amendment. However, with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Court took a new view.
On March 29, 1960, the New York Times ran a full page editorial advertisement from the "Committee to Defend Dr. King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South." titled, “Heed Their Rising Voices.”[4] The ad described the sit-in movement, Dr. Martin Luther King’s tax case, asked for donations to support King's legal defense, the students, and voter-registration. It also mentions the way the authorities have responded to Dr. King and the demonstrators, “Again and again the Southern violators have answered Dr. King's peaceful protests with intimidation and violence.”[5] However, the ad made no specific reference, or by name, as to who the authorities were. The ad also stated that "They have arrested [King] seven times..." However, he had only been arrested four times.[6] Unhappy about the way he and the police department were portrayed in the advertisement, Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, claimed that even though he was not personally named in the ad, it defamed him and filed a "libel" suit not only against four of the people who endorsed the ad but also the Times as they printed it.
Mr. Sullivan won his suit against the all black defendants with an all white jury in an Alabama State Supreme Court during the height of the civil rights era. The Alabama judge also charged the jury in such a way that a finding for the plaintiff was a foregone conclusion. It may not have helped that at the demand of Alabama Governor John Patterson, the New York Times published a retraction of the advertisement. However, the Times did not apologize to Mr. Sullivan, only the Governor, so the Times appealed the case and it continued on to the Supreme Court level.
Once there, the questions that needed to be decided were; could Sullivan sue the New York Times if they unknowingly publish an advertisement that contains a defamation of character and is a form of libel? And how does one know and how can one prove if an article was done with malice? Would the Court uphold Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, when it decided in 1925, that the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment was applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The Court ruled:
The Court today announces a constitutional standard which prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with [p298] "actual malice" -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
[7]
Justice William Brennan, in his majority opinion, used an oft-quoted substantiation for the decision, that:Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.
The New York Times won the Supreme Court decision 9 to 0 because Mr. Sullivan couldn’t prove that the advertisement was done with “actual malice.” This decision now encouraged other publications to report on the illegal actions of other officials without the fear of being held accountable for liable or being sued every time they print something negative about a public figure. It also established a precedent that State Courts cannot award damages unless there is proof of actual malice.
This case had wide ranging implications as it did not just impact “public official.” In 1967, The Court broadened libel to extend to “public figures” including movie stars and athletes in cases like Curtis Publishing Co. v. Betts and Associated Press v. Walker, both in 1967. However, the Court stopped when it came to privet citizens with the 1974 case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
That brings us back to present day and the whether the case should be reexamined in light of the electronic age we live now live in. With the click of a few keys, with “reckless disregard” we type something and send it off for the entire Universe to see regardless of the truth or damage it might do to ones reputation. We are often vicious and careless and it does not matter if we are writing about a “public official”, “public figure”, or your parents who punished you too harshly and you decided to rant about it on Facebook. While the Court’s decision was made at a time in our county’s past to help protect the very speech we value and allow us to not be intimidated or bullied, it is now often used in just that way. It has also made it very difficult to sue someone when they have written false statements and because of the internet, even if you have proven your innocence, that writing will be out there forever. Because of the Court’s decision, reporters can write without fear of being sued and during times of elections, ads can be run with false or misleading claims. Corrections can always be printed, however they are hardly ever given the same exposure or coverage and the person they harmed never seems to get the justice that they might deserve. The decision seems to be a doubled edge sword, our nation wants to have Freedom, but at what cost?
[1] Governor Brownback apologizes to Emma Sullivan over Twitter tiff
[2] Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
[3] Beauharnais v. Illinois | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
[4] Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement -- Heed Their Rising Voices
[5] Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement -- Heed Their Rising Voices
[6] Civil Rights & the Press
[7] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan