New York Times Co. v.

Sullivan

Facts:

Respondent brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an
advertisement in corporate petitioner's newspape r. Respondent's alleged that he
had been libeled by statements in a full-page advertisement that was carried in
the New York Times on March 29, 1960.

Over 64 persons were named, many widely known for their activities in public
affairs, religion, trade unions, and the performing arts. Below these names, and
under a line reading "We in the south who are struggling daily for dignity and
freedom warmly endorse this appeal," appeared the names of the four individual
petitioners and of 16 other persons. The advertisement was signed at the bottom
of the page by the "Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for
Freedom in the South," and the officers of the Committee were listed. Out of the
10 paragraphs of text in the advertisement, the third and a part of the sixth were
the grounds of respondent's claim of libel.

The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police
action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights
demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent
claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision
of the police department.

Issue:

Whether or not the Respondent was libelly injured by the printed text expressing
the petitioner's thoughts.

Ruling:

The court ruled that the allegations of the libel crime was insufficient of evidence
to render damages to the petitioners as actual malice upon the printed text was
not proven and that such damages could be awarded against petitioners if the
statements were found to have been published by them and to have related to
respondent.

The judge also adviced that mere negligence was not evidence of actual malice,
and would not justify an award of punitive damages; he refused to instruct that
actual intent to harm or recklessness had to be found before punitive damages
could be awarded.

Content defamatory of official reputation or mistake of fact are insufficient to

render an award of damages for false statements unless actual malice or
knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth is
alleged and proved. The evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the
judgment for respondent, since it failed to support a finding that the statements
were made with actual malice or that they related to respondent.

Therefore the State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award
damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official
conduct unless he proves actual malice to be present.