Blog Author Specifically Invokes the First Amendment.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

"New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel[2];"

"Alabama law denied a public officer recovery of punitive damages in a libel action brought on account of a publication concerning their official conduct unless they first make a written demand for a public retraction and the defendant fails or refuses to comply, so Sullivan sent such a request.[1] The Times did not publish a retraction in response to the demand. Instead it wrote a letter[citation needed] stating, among other things, that "we ... are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way reflect on you," and "you might, if you desire, let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you".[1] Sullivan did not respond but instead filed this suit a few days later. He also sued four black ministers mentioned in the ad, specifically Ralph AbernathyS.S. Seay, Sr.Fred Shuttlesworth, andJoseph Lowery. Sullivan won $500,000 in an Alabama court judgment.[citation needed]"

Source and More Information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.