1 / 4

New York Times v. Sullivan

New York Times v. Sullivan. The background (social and judicial)--Alabama in 1960 “Heed Their Rising Voices” Sullivan sues for libel--wrong song, didn’t “ring” the campus, didn’t padlock the cafeteria, King only arrested 4X, not 7 Defendants--NYT and ministers, $500K

chinara
Télécharger la présentation

New York Times v. Sullivan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New York Times v. Sullivan • The background (social and judicial)--Alabama in 1960 • “Heed Their Rising Voices” • Sullivan sues for libel--wrong song, didn’t “ring” the campus, didn’t padlock the cafeteria, King only arrested 4X, not 7 • Defendants--NYT and ministers, $500K • Additional suits--Mayor of Montgomery, State of AL, why the strategy?

  2. NYT v. Sullivan continued • Sullivan in the District Court • Impact on the ministers • Sullivan wins at the Alabama S. Ct. as well, Ct. rejects any constitutional issues • Why grant writ of certiorari? • Jan. 1964, oral arguments, decision just 8 weeks later, 9-0 win for the New York Times

  3. The Decision in NYT • Brennan behind the scenes (Anthony Lewis, Make No Law) • “Libel can claim no talismanic immunity…” • “…a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open…” • Error is inevitable…breathing space…” • Brennan seizes the opportunity to review the facts of the case and punish AL judiciary

  4. The Impact of NYT v. Sullivan • The federalization of libel law • The establishment of the actual malice standard---knowingly making false statements, demonstrating a reckless disregard for the truth • Black, Douglas concur; Douglas, Goldberg concur--malice is problematic • Protect the media against suits by public officials

More Related