7/31/2019 NY Times v. Sullivan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ny-times-v-sullivan 1/6

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

376 U.S. 254

Facts:

Respondent, an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state

court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate

petitioner's newspaper, the text of which appeared over the names of the four

individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included statements,

some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students

who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil

rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his

duties included supervision of the police department. The trial judge instructed

the jury that such statements were "libelous per se," legal injury being implied

without proof of actual damages, and that, for the purpose of compensatory

damages, malice was presumed, so that such damages could be awarded against

petitioners if the statements were found to have been published by them and to

have related to respondent. As to punitive damages, the judge instructed that

mere negligence was not evidence of actual malice, and would not justify an

award of punitive damages; he refused to instruct that actual intent to harm or

recklessness had to be found before punitive damages could be awarded, or that

a verdict for respondent should differentiate between compensatory and punitivedamages. The jury found for respondent, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. 

Issue:

Can a public figure receive damages in a civil libel action, if malice is not proven?

Ruling:

A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a

public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he

proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of itsfalsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

a)  Application by state courts of a rule of law, whether statutory or not, to

award a judgment in a civil action, is "state action" under the Fourteenth

Amendment. 

7/31/2019 NY Times v. Sullivan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ny-times-v-sullivan 2/6

b)  Expression does not lose constitutional protection to which it would

otherwise be entitled because it appears in the form of a paid

advertisement.

c)  Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are

insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless"actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless

disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved

d)  State court judgment entered upon a general verdict which does not

differentiate between punitive damages, as to which, under state law,

actual malice must be proved, and general damages, as to which it is

"presumed," precludes any determination as to the basis of the verdict, and

requires reversal, where presumption of malice is inconsistent with federal

constitutional requirements.

e)  The evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment forrespondent, since it failed to support a finding that the statements were

made with actual malice or that they related to respondent.

7/31/2019 NY Times v. Sullivan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ny-times-v-sullivan 3/6

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

376 U.S. 254

Philippinized Ruling

Ruling:

A public figure may receive damages in a civil libel action, even if malice is not

proven in accordance with Article 33 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which

requires only a preponderance of evidence. Thus:

“Article 33. In cases of defamation fraud, and physical injuries, a

civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminalaction, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall

proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require

only a preponderance of evidence.” 

In the case under consideration New York Times has a responsibility not only

to the public but also to the public officer, Mr. L.B. Sullivan of the Montgomery

Publi Safety as its Commissioner, when it advertised “Heed Their Rising Voices”, It

was directed to the Montgomery Public Safety Police Force for their actionsagaints the civil rights protestas, in which Mr. Sullivan was the head of the police

force Montgomery. By its very nature, libel causes dishonor, disrepute and

discredit where Mr. Sullivan’s reputation was injured as a consequence of the

advertisement made by New York Times. Said article is libelous per se as the law

implies damages and the complainant in libel case is not required to introduce

evidence of actual damages, at least when the amount of the award is more or

less nominal as in the case at bar. (Phee vs La Vanguardia 45 Phil 211)

7/31/2019 NY Times v. Sullivan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ny-times-v-sullivan 4/6

If a plaintiff in a defamation case is a public official or a public figure (see  Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S.

130 (1967)), a plaintiff must show that the defendant published the alleged defamatory statement with

actual malice, which the court defines as knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard as

to whether it was false or not.

Defamation

 Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a

 person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or 

feelings against a person. 

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written

statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander. 

The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suitdepends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the

eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineatedin new york times v. sullivan 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686

(1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that falseallegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the

newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest inpreserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of 

expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging

libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Courtdeclared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate onpublic issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic,

unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A publicofficial or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public

eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that

they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not inthe public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to

defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in aposition that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not

entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting theirreputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to

publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, aprivate citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free

speech considerations and deserve greater protection

7/31/2019 NY Times v. Sullivan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ny-times-v-sullivan 5/6

http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Defamation 

One of the more difficult issues in a defamation case focuses on whether the defendant is at

fault for publishing defamatory comments. Common law rules created strict liability on the part

of the defendant, meaning that a defendant could be liable for defamation merely for

publishing a false statement, even if the defendant was not aware that the statement was false.Cases involving an interpretation of the First Amendment later modified the common law rules,

especially in cases involving public officials, public figures, or matters of public concern.

Common Law Rules

At common law, once a plaintiff proved that a statement was defamatory, the court presumed

that the statement was false. The rules did not require that the defendant know that the

statement was false or defamatory in nature. The only requirement was that the defendant must

have intentionally or negligently published the information.

Public Officials and Public Figures

In New York Times v. Sullivan , the Supreme Court recognized that the strict liability rules in

defamation cases would lead to undesirable results when members of the press report on the

activities of public officials. Under the strict liability rules of common law, a public official would

not have to prove that a reporter was aware that a particular statement about the official was

false in order to recover from the reporter. This could have the effect of deterring members of 

the press from commenting on the activities of a public official.

Under the rules set forth in Sullivan , a public official cannot recover from a person who

publishes a communication about a public official's conduct or fitness unless the defendant

knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statement's truth or

falsity. This standard is referred to as "actual malice," although malice in this sense does not

mean ill-will. Instead, the actual malice standard refers to the defendant's knowledge of the

truth or falsity of the statement. Public officials generally include employees of the government

who have responsibility over affairs of the government. In order for the First Amendment rule to

apply to the public official, the communication must concern a matter related directly to the

office.

Later cases expanded the rule to apply to public figures. A public figure is someone who has

gained a significant degree of fame or notoriety in general or in the context of a particular issue

or controversy. Even though these figures have no official role in government affairs, they often

hold considerable influence over decisions made by the government or by the public. Examples

of public figures are numerous and could include, for instance, celebrities, prominent athletes,

or advocates who involve themselves in a public debate.

Private Persons

7/31/2019 NY Times v. Sullivan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ny-times-v-sullivan 6/6

Where speech is directed at a person who is neither a public official nor a public figure, the case

of Gertz v. Robert Welsh, Inc. (1974) and subsequent decisions have set forth different

standards. The Court in Gertz determined that the actual malice standard established in New

York Times v. Sullivan should not apply where speech concerns a private person. However, the

Court also determined that the common law strict liability rules impermissibly burden

publishers and broadcasters.

Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a defendant who publishes a false and defamatory

communication about a private individual is liable to the individual only if the defendant acts

with actual malice (applying the standard under New York Times v. Sullivan) or acts negligently

in failing to ascertain whether a statement was false or defamatory.

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel-slander/requirement-of-fault.html 

The law of defamation protects a person's reputation and good name against communications

that are false and derogatory. Defamation consists of two torts: libel and slander. Libel consistsof any defamation that can be seen, most typically in writing. Slander consists of an oral

defamatory communications. The elements of libel and slander are nearly identical to one

another.

Historically, the law governing slander focused on oral statements that were demeaning to

others. By the 1500s, English courts treated slander actions as those for damages. Libel

developed differently, however. English printers were required to be licensed by and give a

bond to the government because the printed word was believed to be a threat to political

stability. Libel included any criticism of the English government, and a person who committed

libel committed a crime. This history carried over in part to the United States, where Congress

under the presidency of John Adams passed the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to criticize

the government. Congress and the courts eventually abandoned this approach to libel, and the

law of libel is now focused on recovery of damages in civil cases.

Beginning with the landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme

Court has recognized that the law of defamation has a constitutional dimension. Under this

case and subsequent cases, the Court has balanced individual interests in reputation with the

interests of free speech among society. This approach has altered the rules governing libel and

slander, especially where a communication is about a public official or figure, or where the

communication is about a matter of public concern.

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel-slander/defamation-libel-slander-background.html 

http://lawbrain.com/wiki/First_Amendment - first amendment

http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment -fourteenth amendment