1. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, (1964)
2. Facts: Sullivan is a police commissioner. A group supporting Martin Luther King Jr bought a full-page ad in the New York Times, which implied that Sullivan was behind some oppressive tactics being used against blacks in Alabama, and which contained factual discrepancies.
3. Procedural Posture: Sullivan won general damages under an Alabama statute which made “libel per se” if the words spoken “tend to injure a person in his reputation,” the only defense being truth.
4. Issue: Whether a statute that allows civil damages for defamation of a public official by statements criticizing his official conduct is constitutional if it does not require that the statements be made with “actual malice” - that is, with knowlegde that they are false, or with reckless disregard for their truth.
5. Holding: No.
6. Reasoning: The first amendment must protect unintentional false statements against public officials if it is to have the “breathing space” that it needs to operate freely. The fear of libel awards is likely to make a person censor himself, or to make the newspaper refuse to print the statement unless the declarant guarantees that it is free from error. Also, public officials are required to have a thick skin. The “actual malice” requirement is not met here.
