New York Times v Sullivan

One landmark case regarding the nature of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the New York Times v. Sullivan 1964 case. On March 29, 1960, The New York Times released a full-page advertisement, paid for by an organization known as the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King Jr. and the Struggle for Freedom in the South. The ad, headlined “Heed Their Rising Voices,” which aimed to depict the nature of non-violent demonstrations by Southern Negro students to pine for equality in society. Described by The New York Times, “they are being met by an unprecedented wave of terror by those who would deny and negate that document which the whole world looks upon as setting the pattern for modern freedom.” However, it aggrandized some of the actions by the police force in Montgomery, Alabama against civil rights protestors, and at times flat lied, particularly in reference to actions taken by authorities against Martin Luther King Jr. While the Times reported that King had been arrested seven times, he had only been arrested seven times up to that point.

The main issue from this advertisement was that not only had the Times printed incorrect information, but its criticisms of the actions taken by the police tore at the credibility and reputation of the Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan due to his high ranking position, even though his name had not been mentioned in the article. Outraged, Sullivan immediately sought retribution for these punitive damages. But because Alabama law required a written request for retraction before a public official could ask for punitive damages in a libel lawsuit, Sullivan first asked the NYT to publicly disclaim the contents of the advertisement. The newspaper did publish a retraction at the request of Alabama governor John Patterson, yet the Times failed to comply with Sullivan’s request for a retraction since, as they claimed, the ad failed to directly reflect upon Sullivan. Against protest by the Times, Alabama state law held that in a libel case an official could be libelled simply by criticisms against an agency that one headed, and simply the belief that statements were true did not excuse libel. Thus, when Sullivan sued the Times and four other black ministers listed in the ad, the jury ruled in Montgomery’s circuit court that certain paragraphs in the advertisement specifically referred to Sullivan. Affirmed following an appeal by the Times to the State Supreme Court, Sullivan was awarded $500,000 compensation.

There were, of course, other factual errors that proved to be essential to the court’s decision. Some of the “facts” incorrectly reported by the Times included:

• The Montgomery police had padlocked the campus dining hall and ringed the campus of Alabama State College with police.
• Nine Alabama State students were expelled by the State Board of Eduacation for a demonstration at the State Capitol.
• The police had assaulted Martin Luther King.
• King’s home had recently been bombed in response to demonstrations.

At a very important time in history for eliminating segregation and pursuing for equality for blacks, this case was extremely important in that it presented an opportunity for public officials to criticize the media and put an end to media’s outcry against segregation in the south. Further, a defeat for the Times would have reduced the media’s influence to relatively the same amount as the Sherman Anti Trust Act in its earliest stages. The Times followed up with an appeal to the Supreme Court, since it felt the advertisement had not personally committed libel against Sullivan.

Though in a thought- to-be conservative court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Times. Writing the opinion of the Court, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. said libel suits - historically unprotected by the First Amendment - could not be used to violate the guarantee of free speech. A public official could recover libel damages, he ruled, only if he proved that a false and damaging statement about him or her had been made without the knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth. Further, the Court criticized Alabama’s civil libel law, declaring that the law was inherently against free speech and discouraged negative assessments of public officials or services. In particular, the Montgomery Circuit Court’s award of $500,000 was wildly out of proportion with the penalties issued by Alabama’s criminal statute: six months in prison and a $500 fine. Brennan wrote that the Alabama state government had attempted to intimidate citizens into not speaking out against political issues. Additionally, the Court rejected the notion that citizens or publications had to guarantee absolute truth in their statements, and simply making misstatements did constitute “actual malice.”

Ultimately, this case established the standard for actual malice in deciding on libel in a press report. Though at the time libel lawsuits in excess of $300 million total in damages had been filed across the South against media organizations, the decision reached in this case allowed continued reporting of the civil rights movement without fear of dangerous repercussions in the court of law.

Personally, I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. We would not be the nation we are today without scrutinizing decisions made by high-ranking officials and influential figures in government, and it underlies a vital component of what makes us a democracy. In this case in particular, had Sullivan prevailed, the media might have been forced to cease reports on the true condition of segregation in the South and blacks might never have prevailed on their march towards equality. While the media definitely runs wild at times with its criticisms of government officials, sports figures, actors, musicians, and pretty much anyone with some sort of hold over popular opinion, I feel that this is a necessary part of ensuring a free democracy where citizens can remain informed and not held in check by high ranking political officials.