Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limit the ability of a public official to sue for defamation.
The suit was funded by grants from several conservative organizations, such as the Richard Mellon Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation whose goals were to kill CBS Reports and turn back the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan rule. [7] CBS's defense was led by David Boies of the firm Cravath, Swaine ...
John Hasnas, a Georgetown University law Professor, agrees with Thomas and told theGrio, “I think that the New York Times v. Sullivan case should be re-examined.” “New York Times v. Sullivan ...
The Supreme Court adopted the actual malice standard in its landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, [2] in which the Warren Court held that: . The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ...
The court established a stringent limit on defamation claims by public figures more than 60 years ago in its New York Times v. Sullivan decision involving the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment ...
Palin and media critics have viewed the case as a vehicle to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that made it much harder for public figures to prove ...
The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless ...
The term historically had antisemitic connotations, as many of the New York firms known as white-shoe were considered inaccessible to Jewish lawyers until the 1960s. [ 5 ] [ 8 ] The phrase has since lost some of this connotation, but is still defined by Princeton University 's WordNet as "denoting a company or law firm owned and run by members ...