New York Times V. Sullivan Argumentative Essay

One of the propositions that was brought up during Thursday's debate session concerned whether or not the New York Times v. Sullivan case went too far in establishing actual malice as a requirement where public officials are concerned. The case officially ruled that a public official must showcase proof against the libel. In this discussion, I would have to take the side of the two individuals who argued for this statement. An important point one of them brought up was the fact that the case exemplified the tort of defamation. The original article published from the New York Times essentially fit every requirement to become a tort, in that it was published, concerning the plaintiff, the defendant was at false, and the content released was proven false. Despite his initial victory at the state, this the court case was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court due to him not providing sufficient evidence for his innocence. …show more content…
Additionally, this person included how this standards adds a huge burden on public officials, who often times cannot have the means to prove their innocence. I would also like to elaborate that some individuals can only prove the intention of falsehood from the authors part through very certain means. In a more recent court case, former governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura won a libel court case against the late Chris Kyle. In Kyle’s novel, The American Sniper, he alleged that Venture assaulted him inside of a bar. In this scenario, he would need to prove audio or video files in order to prove the falsity of that statement. Ventura was able to win the case because of another libelous statement in the book, but Kyle could have easily gotten away with that claim if not for the other false