New York Times Company v. Sullivan 1964

AuthorDaniel Brannen, Richard Hanes, Elizabeth Shaw
Pages189-193

Page 189

Appellant: The New York Times Company

Appellee: L. B. Sullivan

Appellant's Claim: That when the Supreme Court of Alabama upheld a libel judgment against The New York Times, it violated the newspaper's free speech and due process rights. Also, that an advertisement published in the Times was not libelous.

Chief Lawyers for Appellant: Herbert Brownell, Thomas F. Daly, and Herbert Wechsler

Chief Lawyers for Appellee: Sam Rice Baker, M. Roland Nachman, Jr., and Robert E. Steiner III

Justices for the Court: Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Arthur Goldberg, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren, and Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting: None

Date of Decision: March 9, 1964

Decision: The Alabama courts' decisions were reversed.

Significance: The U.S. Supreme Court greatly expanded Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and the press. It halted the rights of states to award damages in libel suits according to state laws.

Page 190

On March 23, 1960, an organization called the "Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South" paid The New York Times to publish a full-page advertisement. The ad called for public support and money to defend Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. who was struggling to gain equal rights for African Americans. The ad ran in the March 29, 1960 edition of the Times with the title "Heed Their Rising Voices" in large, bold print.

The ad criticized several southern areas, including the city of Montgomery, Alabama, for breaking up civil rights demonstrations. In addition, the ad declared that "Southern violators of the Constitution" were determined to destroy King and his civil rights movement. No person was mentioned by name. The reference was to the entire South, not just to Montgomery or other specific cities.

ACTUAL MALICE STANDARDS

Until 1964, each state used its own standards to determine what was considered libelous. This changed after the decision in New York Times Company v. Sullivan. This landmark case established the criteria that would be used nationwide when determining libel cases involving public officials.

The Court stated that "actual malice" must be shown by the publishers of alleged libelous materia, when the falseness of the material is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT