New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: A Landmark Case for Free Speech [No. 86]

Are political ads protected under the First Amendment? In this episode of No. 86, Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law explains how New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), a landmark Supreme Court case, transformed our understanding of libel law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Follow the Eugene Volokh on Twitter: @VolokhC
/ volokhc
Related Links:
Oyez: New York Times v. Sullivan
www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39
DC Bar: Window to the Past: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/p...
ABA Journal: 50 years after New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, do courts still value journalists’ watchdog role?
www.abajournal.com/magazine/ar...
Washington Post: Antonin Scalia hates ‘NYT v. Sullivan’
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...
The Atlantic: The Civil Rights Heroes the Court Ignored in New York Times v. Sullivan
www.theatlantic.com/national/...
Chicago Unbound: Was New York Times v. Sullivan Wrong?
chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cg...

[@hus390]

Forget about politicians, what about private citizens who happen to be celebrities??

[@user-yj5md3ib6k]

Perfectly legal.

[@neomonk5668]

Looks like you’ll need an update given the recent ruling in Project Veritas v. NYT

[@danielkosciuszko9788]

what do you mean? What project veritas did was legal right?

[@jrsands]

Project Veritas is not a public “official”. And, more importantly, the NYTimes KNEW the material published in the times was false and libelous when it published the lies. The lies were NOT an advertisement as was the case in NYTimes v Sullivan. The NYTimes knew they were printing lies & should be held accountable.

[@coraliefe18]

thank you!!

[@alzhanstamkulov5250]

Good job!

[@ericwinnick330]

The founders believed that people have a right to reputation. Hell even some of them filled lawsuits against journalists.

[@danishbiochem]

The framers didn't mention the freedom of press in the first amendment by design. There's no evidence to show that any thought process went into the order in which amendments where proposed. In fact, the first two original amendments proposed by Madison had failed then. It was thus by chance, that the third amendement came to be known as the 'first amendment'.

[@hus390]

They just made up new standards. Defamation is a tort and people are entitled to defend their reputation.

[@princehide2650]

This is not to say that the Constitution protects defamatory statements directed against the private conduct of a public official or private citizen. Freedom of press and of speech insures that government will respond to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by peaceful means. Purely private defamation has little to do with the political ends of a self-governing society. The imposition of liability for private defamation does not abridge the freedom of public speech or any other freedom protected by the First Amendment.

[@princehide2650]

The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution afford to the citizen and to the press an absolute, unconditional privilege to criticize official conduct despite the harm which may flow from excesses and abuses. The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise, unfair, false, or malicious. In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized. Such criticism cannot, in my opinion, be muzzled or deterred by the courts at the instance of public officials under the label of libel.

[@bobhanson6073]

In other words, you can lie and get away with it. Got it!!

[@chelly3190]

How the fuck can you watch this video and then leave with this opinion

[@dmoney0102]

@@chelly3190 how the fuck can you not? free speech comes with consequences. a mistake is one thing. saying something without knowing its true is another and DELIBERITELY lying and making falsehoods is a completely different conversation. media outlets are clearly exploiting that

[@scsc9311]

@@chelly3190 A great example would be President Trump. The mainstream media lied so much about him. On the best day, they framed what he said completely out of context. Because of this, many people were ill informed of the president and voted against him based on falsehoods. So explain exactly how the media are not libel.

[@chelly3190]

@@scsc9311 They didn’t really do this though. There may have been some examples sure, but not the extent your talking about. Donald Trump is a fucking scumbag who would say the dumbest shit and fucking lie constantly and then get shit on for that. You are delusional if you really think that he was telling you the truth so I won’t try to argue with you any further. i’m done wasting my time with trump supporters or anyone who believes that trump is a victim of biased media

[@scsc9311]

@@chelly3190 You could be forgiven for thinking what you do. Given the fact that you watch media that only lies to you. I can give so many examples of this, but that would just detract from the fact that your hatred of President Trump is unwarranted. If you truly and honestly wanted the truth, seek it out. There are many un-doctored videos of what President Trump really said. If in the end, you just want to trust the lying media, then to each his/her own. But you cannot be angry in the end. You have indoctrinated yourself and you have no one to blame but yourself.

[@bullymaguire1745]

Yall nerds

[@mrdolson2734]

ok senpai batman

[@chainmail5886]

Forgive me Senpai Batman! I have brought great shame upon my family! I will commit Sudoku!

[@chainmail5886]

@Matthew Chen hehe