New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Summary | quimbee.com

A video case brief of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Read the full text brief at www.quimbee.com/cases/new-yor...
Sullivan (plaintiff) was Commissioner of the Police Department, Fire Department, Department of the Cemetery, and Department of Scales for Montgomery, Alabama. He brought a civil libel action against New York Times Co. (defendant) after it printed allegedly false and defamatory statements about Sullivan’s actions to control African American protesters and his treatment of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The newspaper article in question accused Sullivan’s police force of conducting a wave of terror against African American students and brutally harassing Dr. King. It is undisputed that several of the allegations were either false or exaggerated. At trial, the trial judge charged the jury that the statements in the article were “libelous per se” and that damages were appropriate if the statements were merely “of and concerning” Sullivan. The jury returned a verdict for Sullivan and awarded him $500,000 in damages. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

[@hifpif7470]

Proving actual malice is a heavy burden.

[@carlosmorrison9577]

But an appropriate "burden" for athletes, entertainers, and public officials.. Johnny Depp's latest case is a good example...

[@dkmonkey217]

Brilliant video, thank you so much

[@DaGoatt11]

Thanks this helps my case study !

[@lauragonz34]

This really helps with AP Govt. thanks!

[@apdroidgeek1737]

thank you so much I couldn't understand some part of it due to some big complicated words and long phrasing. But this video explains it clearly.

[@unbreakableroad9294]

another great video, thanks hand-unit

[@noahburgess3053]

Thanks! Super helpful!

[@suns_out_7610]

Thanks, got a quiz tomorrow

[@ArtStoneUS]

Did the advertisement specifically mention Mr. Sullivan or did he designate himself as a victim?

[@GINGI9519]

Such a bs decision "malice" is a trash standard

[@adamcarter9287]

If anybody has knowledge on this issue and can help me I would greatly appreciate it. I’m wondering how this precedent does not violate equal protection?

[@sonofode902]

My note, So basically, "you don't punished the stupid for the act of lying, and you don't punished the liar as if they are just being ignorant." Liars should be punished for their lie, and ignorants should not be punished for their ignorance because ignorance already has it's own cost to pay when done. You don't punish a person who fell from a ladder for their ignorance with a ladder. The idea of malice is the idea of evil intention. Evil intention is a bad intention done in consciousness/awareness. Ignorance is an action absent from consciousness/awareness. So to sum it up, action done with awareness should not be judge the same with action done without awareness. Well then how do we do that without in a way promoting ignorance in free press, because to prove malice is not easy, and for someone who did have malice can always claim that they are just being ignorant/stupid. Here is what me thinks reputation in free market plays their role. Any press/media found to broadcast, produce mistakes in their reporting should be noted by the viewer. Basically we elevate the press/media whom produce/broadcast balance good reporting, and we drop the media whom produce/broadcast bad/biased reporting. The good rating system. Gin,

[@readynowforever3676]

This decision is not about "promoting ignorance" as you rendered it. What this law simply says is, if I call your company for a plumping job & while you are fixing my sink my silverware comes up missing, I then write a review suggesting that you stole my property & I file a police report stating you were the only one in the house, only later it is discovered with the assistance of the neighbor's video cam, that a burglar came in through the back door while you went out to your truck to fetch a tool. It was a reasonably innocent mistake. However, this particular hypothetical scenario that I laid out may not be covered, because it doesn't involve per se a "public figure" but rather a private one. But if you had retired from your business and ran for mayor & I libeled you say during your campaign with this, knowing the case/occurrence had be solved & therefore exonerating you from wrong doing, you would have absolute proof of libel & malice. You would consequently win your law suit affirmed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[@falcon759]

@@readynowforever3676 I think one of the main factors in this case is that direct accusations against Sullivan himself were never made (in fact, his name wasn't even mentioned). I'm not sure if this decision would have been unanimous had that not been the case.

[@apdroidgeek1737]

@@falcon759 right, that's why he lost the case, the factual inaccuracies weren't targeting him directly

[@beauxguidry5373]

I have a solution for the electricity problem, but you will have arrange a meeting for me with two people to get it.

[@The495marauder]

One person disliked this video. Scum bag.

[@socalpal8416]

"These protected debates are encouraged by by the courts landmark decision in Sullivan." Then explain to me how social media like FaceBook, KZbin etc, can de-platform people and groups for not meeting their 'woke' standards? Time to revisit NYTC vs Sullivan.

[@irkskirt5384]

Social Media companies are in a different category than traditional media. The common decency act basically gives them immunity to anything that gets put on their service, and since they’re private companies they can restrict it however they want also. Not saying it’s right but NYT vs Sullivan just wouldn’t be able to be applied to social media companies

[@sdnlawrence5640]

They're not defaming, they're just limiting access. A church is a "public" forum but that doesn't mean anyone can walk in and claim the pulpit. But anyone can stand on public property and say whatever they want, about public figures.

[@rozchristopherson648]

@@sdnlawrence5640Only without malice.