This paper examines the "New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan" Supreme Court case that argued the liability of the press and questioned the right to freedom speech.
Abstract The writer of this paper analyzes the 1964 Supreme Court case of the "New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan" in which the respondent, an elected official, brought suit against the paper alleging that he had been libeled in the petitioner's newspaper. This paper argues whether the rule of liability as applied to an action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct abridges abridges the freedom of speech and of the press that is guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments.
From the Paper "If the court permits The Local Newspaper to use NY Times vs Sullivan as a precedent in this case, it would create another precedent allowing the Press to print anything they wanted whether it was true or not, whether or not they had reliable sources. Today because of NY Times vs Sullivan, the press is permitted to print anything about the public acts of a public official. Sullivan does not permit the press to print libelous falsehoods about private lives of public individuals. Private individuals are protected fully by the 1st and 14th Amendments."
