Cameron Redburn

JRNL 307

02/04/2020

The case New York Times Company v. L. B. Sullivan was a Supreme Court case that changed the

way in which a public official can sue for defamation. It ruled that in order to have a case, a public

official must prove not only that what was published was false and caused them harm, but also that

what was published was done so with “actual malice”; meaning that the person who published it knew

that it was false, or maliciously avoided fact-checking the statement.

This was a huge step for journalism and freedom of the press. Not only did it make it harder for

public officials to come after journalists, it protected journalists from legal action for things that really

could just be simple mistakes.

Some people may argue that this makes it easier for journalists to publish false information, but

I don’t think that this is as big of an issue as many may think. Journalists never want to publish false

information, it’s just something that happens sometimes, especially with developing stories or stories

that don’t have a lot of information. If a journalist purposely published false information, they would still

be subject to a defamation suit, because they made the statements with actual malice. The ruling in this

case protects journalists who fall victim to unreliable sources and misinformation, not ones who want to

purposely spread false information.

If the ruling was overturned, I think that journalism today would change drastically. Politicians or

public officials who dislike the media would have more freedom to come after news organizations and

journalists for simple mistakes, or things that they do not agree with. Obviously if the news organization

can prove that what they reported was factual, they wouldn’t have to worry; but it would still be a huge

inconvenience to have to go through an unnecessary court case.

 New York Times Company v. L. B. Sullivan is a very important case for the first amendment and

for journalists everywhere. Without it, the journalism that we know today would be drastically different,

and journalists would have an even bigger target on their back.