This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
New York Times v. Sullivan: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The Alabama Supreme Court concurred that Sullivan's reputation and that of his police department had been damaged. It found in favor of Sullivan. | The Alabama Supreme Court concurred that Sullivan's reputation and that of his police department had been damaged. It found in favor of Sullivan. | ||
|issues=Can a public official bring a defamation suit for false statements concerning public issues? | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan | ||
Revision as of 14:25, January 20, 2023
| New York Times v. Sullivan | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | March 9, 1964 |
| Appealed from | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Cited by | |
| Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. | |
Facts
In 1960, a civil rights organization took out a page of advertisement in the New York Times. The ad accuses the opponents of civil rights of a "wave of terror." Namely, the Montgomery Police Department in Alabama was accused of targeting MLK with intimidation such as "They have arrested him 7 times-for “speeding.” “loitering”.
The Alabama police countered that there were false and inaccurate statements in the advertisement because the Alabama police never pad-locked the Alabama State College dining hall to starve the students, never arrested MLK 7 times for speeding, and so on. Other claims were exaggerated. Therefore, the article defamed the Alabama police departments.
Sullivan, the Montgomery police commissioner, objected to the defamatory piece.Procedural History
Sullivan sued The New York Times in Alabama state court for libel. (Libel is defamatory writing while slander is defamatory spoken words.) The trial judge ruled in Sullivan's favor.
The Alabama Supreme Court concurred that Sullivan's reputation and that of his police department had been damaged. It found in favor of Sullivan.
