New York Times v. Sullivan
376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Author: Philip M. Smith

Facts/Procedural History: L.B. Sullivan, an elected official of Montgomery, Alabama, brought a civil libel suit against four civil rights activist petitioners and the New York Times Company.  The Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded him $500,000, the full amount claimed, against all of the petitioners, and the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed.

Sullivan alleged that his character was defamed by a full-page advertisement published in the Times that cited several examples of police misconduct during political protests.  The ad contained several factual errors regarding the events in question.  Although the ad never specifically named Sullivan as a culprit, he argued that it implied as much since he was the city official in charge of the police department.

Issue: Is speech that damages the character of a public official, even if it is not entirely true, protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments? 

Holding:   Yes.  (Unanimous)

Rationale:  Justice Brennan, after identifying the Alabama legal tests for libel, asserted that this case must be considered within the context of a democratic society that demands “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate.  He argued that factual errors are to be expected in free debate, and that both “factual error” and    “Injury to official reputation” are not justifications for the suppression of speech, even if existing at once.

The Court further argued that the state’s allowance of truth as a defense for libel, against the possibility of limitless financial penalties, would inevitably lead to “self-censorship.”  Under the state provision, critics would fear speaking out due to the high burden of proving their claims true or the cost of doing so in court.

The Court establishes the “actual malice” test which limits public officials to seeking damages for “defamatory falsehoods” only if they prove that those who made the statements either knew the statements to be false or made them with “reckless disregard of whether [they were] false or not.”

 Justice Black, concurring, had a more radical perspective, arguing that “malice” is “an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove.”  He adds, “An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.”