What did the Supreme Court say in New York Times v. Sullivan?
About this video
Libel is written defamation, and traditionally a state could punish any defamatory statement that was proved false. In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court held that for statements about public officials, public figures or the government, a speaker is liable only if they knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The goal was to avoid over-deterring criticism, and the rule extends to public figures because they have put themselves into public debate.
You'll be able to
- explain how defamation law worked before New York Times v. Sullivan.
- state the standard Sullivan set for statements about public officials and public figures.
- explain why the Court wanted to avoid over-deterring criticism.
- explain why public figures are treated like public officials.
Key words
- Defamation
- A false statement that damages someone's reputation.
- Libel
- Defamation in written form.
- Reckless disregard for the truth
- Not caring whether a statement is true or false when making it.
- Public figure
- A widely known person, like an entertainer, who has put themselves into public debate.
- Over-deter
- To discourage people so much that they avoid even useful, legitimate speech.
Transcript
Libel is simply a form of defamation. It's a written form rather than oral form. But defamation, basically, traditionally, the state could punish someone for making a defamatory statement about another person if it was proved to be false, period. Then in 1964, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court said that statements that are made about public figures or public officials or about the government, even if they are false, an individual cannot be held liable for them unless the plaintiff or the government can prove that the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The idea was to say, we don't want to over-deter criticism. Criticism is important in our society, and people who know they're making a false statement that defend someone can be held liable for that,
but someone who had reasonable grounds to believe that the statement was true cannot be held liable for that, and that was a major decision in the history of the First Amendment, in which the Court basically made a radical change in when defamation can be subject of liability. A public figure means somebody who even though not a government official or politician, is someone who is widely known and the reason for that is speech about people who are widely known, let's say, an entertainer, even though it's not political. People have an interest in knowing about those people and people who have become public figures have put themselves out into public discourse and public debate in the way an ordinary person has not. Therefore, they've opened themselves up to being subject to criticism and the like because they've
basically put themselves out there as a public figure. But it's a line that's very tricky.
Video © Khan Academy, used under CC BY-NC-SA. Watch on Khan Academy. Puzzicle is not affiliated with Khan Academy.