Respondent Sullivan was an elected Commissioner of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. He was Commissioner of Public Affairs; his duties included supervision of the Police Department. He brought this civil libel action against petitioner the New York Times.
Respondent alleged that he was libeled by statements in an advertisement that was published in the New York Times on March 29, 1960.
The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police activity allegedly directed at students in a civil rights demonstration as well as a civil rights leader; respondent claimed the statements must have referred to him because his position included supervision of the police.
The trial, the judge instructed the jury that the above statements were "libelous per se," i.e. injury was implied without proof of actual damages, and that for the purpose of compensatory damages malice was presumed, and thus damages could be awarded if the statements were found to have been published by the petitioner and to have referred to respondent. …show more content…
ISSUE: Was the New York Times liable for defamation?
RULING: No. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama was reversed and the case remanded to that court.
RATIONALE: The court found the advertisement to be an expression regarding a major public issue, and as such was subject to constitutional protection. The issue for the court was whether the ad forfeited that protection by the falsity of some of its statements.
There is no “truth test” for the First Amendment. A rule requiring that any critic of official conduct must guarantee the truth of all factual assertions, on pain of libel, would lead to
Respondent alleged that he was libeled by statements in an advertisement that was published in the New York Times on March 29, 1960.
The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police activity allegedly directed at students in a civil rights demonstration as well as a civil rights leader; respondent claimed the statements must have referred to him because his position included supervision of the police.
The trial, the judge instructed the jury that the above statements were "libelous per se," i.e. injury was implied without proof of actual damages, and that for the purpose of compensatory damages malice was presumed, and thus damages could be awarded if the statements were found to have been published by the petitioner and to have referred to respondent. …show more content…
ISSUE: Was the New York Times liable for defamation?
RULING: No. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama was reversed and the case remanded to that court.
RATIONALE: The court found the advertisement to be an expression regarding a major public issue, and as such was subject to constitutional protection. The issue for the court was whether the ad forfeited that protection by the falsity of some of its statements.
There is no “truth test” for the First Amendment. A rule requiring that any critic of official conduct must guarantee the truth of all factual assertions, on pain of libel, would lead to