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.
As Thomas again urges the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, Vera Eielman of the ACLU says “breathing space for people to exercise their First Amendment ...
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 ...
Brennan's role in expanding free speech rights under the First Amendment is particularly notable, as he wrote the Court's opinion in 1964's New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which created constitutional restrictions on the law of libel. It was Brennan who coined the phrase "chilling effect", in 1965's Dombrowski v. Pfister. His close friendship ...
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 ...
What's more, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has expressed a desire to overturn the landmark New York Times vs. Sullivan court decision, which would have been at the heart of the ABC ...
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 ...
Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday renewed his yearslong attack on a landmark First Amendment decision, with the conservative jurist again calling for the Supreme Court to revisit the “flawed ...