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 ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation.
preemption of state unfair competition laws which restrict sale of unpatented items, decided same day as Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: Free Speech: 376 U.S. 254 (1964) freedom of speech, libel Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino: 376 U.S. 398 (1964)
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...
As Thomas again urges the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, Vera Eielman […] The post Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas thinks the press has too much ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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 ...
Media critics, and Palin herself, have viewed the case as a possible vehicle to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that set a high bar for public ...
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 ...