new york times co v sullivan held that there must be proof of
actual malice
title: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan text: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation case, if that person is a public official or public figure, prove that the title: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan text: 1960," with Fiss noting that the decision helped cement "the free-speech traditions that have ensured the vibrancy of American democracy." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires title: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan text: truth or falsity)." The decision allowed newspapers more freedom to report on the widespread chaos and police abuse during the Civil Rights Movement. In "Sullivan", the Supreme Court adopted the term "actual malice" and gave it constitutional significance. The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice. In his concurring opinion, Justice Black explained, "'Malice,' even as defined by the Court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the title: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan text: publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such claims by public figures rarely prevail. Before this decision, there were nearly US $300,000,000 in libel actions from the Southern states outstanding against news organizations, as part of a focused effort by Southern officials to use defamation lawsuits as a means of preventing critical coverage of civil rights issues in out-of-state publications. The Supreme Court's decision, title: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan text: did refer to the action of the state authorities and the Board of Education presumably of which the Governor is the "ex officio" chairman... However, the Secretary also testified he did not think that "any of the language in there referred to Mr. Sullivan." Sullivan won $500,000 in an Alabama court judgment. The state supreme court affirmed on August 30, 1962, saying "The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect libelous publications". The Times appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Constitutional law scholar Herbert Wechsler successfully argued the case before the United States Supreme Court. Louis M.