New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Background:

The New York Times published an article about L.B. Sullivan, Montgomery (AL) city commissioner, and accused him of trying to prevent black people from voting and was trying to stop MLK Jr.'s efforts. He claimed that the newspaper was trying to defame him, and he won $500,000. However, the New York Times took the case to the Supreme Court, saying that Sullivan had no reason to feel harmed.

Question:

Does Alabama's libel law break the 1st Amendment right to free speech and press because it didn't force plaintiffs to prove that the damaging article actually hurt him/her?

Arguments:

They say that because the article was written with malicious intent, yes, the NYT should be held accountable.

Others say that it's within the constitutional right for the NYT to publish the article because they had no malicious intent, and also because Sullivan could not prove it actually hurt him to a great extent.

Conclusion:

Even false articles about public officials is protected when they are made without real malice.

Implications:

This gives the press more power and less power to public officials. Now public officials are more careful as to what they say because you never know how it can be twisted against you. FAKE NEWS!!!!