Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era. [ 3 ] The underlying case began in 1960, when The New York Times published a full-page advertisement by supporters of Martin Luther King Jr. that criticized the police in Montgomery, Alabama , for their treatment of civil rights ...
Pages for logged out editors learn more. Contributions; Talk; New york times v. sullivan
This term was adopted by the Supreme Court 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 'actual malice ...
Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case". [3] It was later a key precedent in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), in which the Court ruled against the Nixon administration's attempt to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers. [4]
A report by him in The New York Times in 1960 about some factual errors in a week-old advertisement, appealing for funding to defend King in a Montgomery perjury case, sparked the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. That decision limited the capacity of public officials to sue for defamation. [1] [3] [4]
Justice Brennan had previously written the majority opinion in the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964; that case ruled individual officials who were publicly known were not able to obtain claims for inaccurate media coverage except in the case of reckless or willful reporting of said inaccuracies. [16]
Westmoreland's claims were governed by the landmark 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, which held that, in order to recover for defamation, a "public figure" like Westmoreland must prove that the defendant made the statements in question with "actual malice" (essentially, with knowledge, or reckless disregard, of falsity). [1]
During the Killian documents controversy in 2004, the authenticity of the documents themselves was disputed by a variety of individuals and groups. Proof of authenticity is not possible without original documents, and since CBS used only faxed and photocopied duplicates, authentication to professional standards would be impossible regardless of the provenance of the originals.