Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In a 2015 Time magazine survey of over 50 law professors, both Owen Fiss and Steven Shiffrin named New York Times v. Sullivan "the best Supreme Court decision since 1960," with Fiss noting that the decision helped cement "the free-speech traditions that have ensured the vibrancy of American democracy" and Schiffrin remarking that the case ...
In Greek mythology, Antiope (/ æ n ˈ t aɪ ə p i /; Ancient Greek: Ἀντιόπη derived from αντι anti "against, compared to, like" and οψ ops "voice" or means "confronting" [1]) was the daughter of the Boeotian river god Asopus, according to Homer; [2] in later sources [3] she is called the daughter of the "nocturnal" king Nycteus ...
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 ...
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 Supreme Court, in an unusual Sunday update to its schedule, did not specify what ruling it would issue. Colorado is one of 15 states and a U.S. territory holding primary elections on.
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]