<P> The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice . That phrase refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation , rather than its ordinary meaning of malicious intent . 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 right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment . '' </P>
<P> The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice . That phrase refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation , rather than its ordinary meaning of malicious intent . 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 right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment . '' </P>
new york times co v sullivan held that there must be proof of
new york times co v sullivan held that there must be proof of
actual malice
actual malice