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.
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 ...
Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) St. Amant v. Thompson (1968) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) Time, Inc. v. Firestone (1976) Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (1981) Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc ...
The defense of "fair comment" in the U.S. since 1964 has largely been replaced by the ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).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 ...
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul: 373 U.S. 132 (1963) Preemption, Dormant Commerce Clause: Silver v. New York Stock Exchange: 373 U.S. 341 (1963) duty of self-regulation imposed upon the New York Stock Exchange by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 did not exempt it from the antitrust laws: Ker v. California: 374 U.S. 23 (1963)
The censorship of student media in the United States is the suppression of student-run news operations' free speech by school administrative bodies, typically state schools. This consists of schools using their authority to control the funding and distribution of publications, taking down articles, and preventing distribution.
In a prepared statement, a New York Times Co. spokesperson said the company has no issue with people creating similar word games that do not infringe its Wordle "trademarks or copyrighted gameplay."
The image involved here is a reproduction of a full-page New York Times ad, originally published on 29 March 1960. The ad was the subject matter of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan a very important case in US Constitutional law, and so an image of the actual ad might well be considered "iconic" and "historically significant" It is surely not ...