The Standard of Actual Malice - Assignment Example

The case is New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan- 376 U.S 254 (1964), a case of the United States Supreme Court (Justia.com).

2. Facts of the Case
This is the case that defined the standard of actual malice and the level of speech freedom about public figures (Rolph, David &Kirby, 1). According to the United States Supreme Court, a public figure cannot be held in libel unless proof of malice can be evidenced. The case is of New York Times a newspaper company that was sued by L. B Sullivan, a Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner for defamation due to an advertisement titled ‘Heed Their Rising Voices’ (Justia.com). Sullivan accused the New York Times; of falsely accusing him of arresting Martin Luther King Jr seven times, yet in reality Martin Luther had only been arrested four times (Justia.com). In addition, Sullivan accused four black ministers named in the advertisement of erroneously accusing the police actions on protesters in Alabama. The New York Times said the suit was a way of intimidating new publishing houses and a way of averting them from exposing unlawful actions of workers about the segregation. Sullivan won the case in the trial court.

3. Issues
The famous case of the New York Times vs. Sullivan was a cry of the black people about segregation and liberty of speech. The laws state that ‘A municipal official litigating for libel must attest that the statement in question was made with actual malevolence, rather than ordinary sense of malicious intent’ (Justia.com). Assuming that Sullivan was acting on behalf of the Alabama state and the police department of Alabama, the key issue here is, ‘Does the suing of a newspaper and black ministers who are attempting to end segregation qualify for defamation suit? Additionally, a key issue here is, ‘What constitutes actual malice, and what are the standards of speech freedom or defamation?

4. Decisions and Reasoning
The court ruled in favor of the New York Times as the Alabama court laws were found to be deficient. This is because there was a failure to provide confines to speech defamation and freedom (Justia.com). The United States Supreme Court states clearly that the facts provided by the Alabama court, even if presented under the preserve of verbal communication, were still inefficient constitutionally in the case of Sullivan (Packard, 241). The law states’ proof of actual malice was necessary for compensation to be honored (Justia.com). There were no dissidents as all the judges were for the ruling in favor of the New York Times.

Therefore, it was wise of the court to allow the press and public figures freedom of speech as it has changed the world drastically. In addition, it has unified the white and blacks and brought peace to the United States. Read More