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 restrict the ability of a public official to sue for defamation.
The defense of "fair comment" in the U.S. since 1964 has largely been replaced by the ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This case relied on the issue of actual malice , which involves the defendant making a statement known at the time to be false, or which was made with a "reckless disregard" of whether the ...
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. 376 U.S. 225 (1964) 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)
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 ...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_york_times_v._sullivan&oldid=106820238"
The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.
The appeals court, however, had agreed with Consumers Union that under the precedent set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the appeals court had to review the entire matter de novo in order to determine whether the false fact was published with "actual malice." As Bose had not presented sufficient evidence of actual malice, the appeals ...
Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). [1]