Logo image
Back
The Enduring Significance of New York Times v. Sullivan
Book chapter   Open access

The Enduring Significance of New York Times v. Sullivan

Samantha Barbas
The Future of Press Freedom: Democracy, Law, and The News in Changing Times, pp.247-256
Cambridge University Press
2025
DOI: 10.1017/9781009515511.020
url
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009515511.020View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

Summary One of the Supreme Court’s most significant First Amendment rulings may be in peril. For the past 60 years, the landmark 1964 decision of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and the cases that followed have secured strong First Amendment protections for the press and others who speak on public affairs. Under these cases, public officials and public figures must show that the speaker acted with “actual malice” or “reckless disregard” of the truth in order to win a libel suit. This chapter draws heavily on my book Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan (Oakland: University of California Press, 2023). Scholars and advocates have long celebrated Sullivan as one of the most important Supreme Court rulings for the protection of press freedom. Yet, this history also lays bare the high stakes of losing the First Amendment protections recognized in Sullivan. Prior to the Court’s ruling in Sullivan, government officials and other public figures routinely weaponized libel laws to suppress their critics, particularly members of the press. This chapter uses history to explain how and why Sullivan nearly eliminated those overwhelming threats to the press. If New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and related cases are overruled, libel suits could again become weapons of blatant political suppression.
 attacks democracyb freedom lawsuit New York Times press protections Sullivan

Details

Metrics

1 Record Views
Logo image