Garrison Vs Louisiana Essay

The court case of New York Times vs Sullivan was a case that involved public officials and how they were libeled in the press in the year of nineteen sixty four. L.B. Sullivan was one of three elected commissioners of Alabama. The respondent was L. B. Sullivan was a public official from Alabama and brought a lawsuit against an clergymen, a negro and against a petitioner of the New York Times Company. L.B. Sullivan sued all of these people because he felt that he was libeled in a advertisement of the New York Times. The case had to deal with if the constitutional protections of speech and press limit the states power to award damages for the libel action brought by a public official against the critics of his official conduct.

uring the years 1789 through 1816 (the time known as the Launching of a New Nation) the United States had to build their way up to where they are today. There were 2 political parties forming with polar opposite views. which set up a way the government is like today. The United States expand West through war and settlements made with other foreign countries. The first four presidents set a precedent on how the county is ran and it is has still been followed for the past few centuries. Although, the Embargo Act ruined the relation with France, the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812, strengthen the economic and political system.

A case challenging a statute as violating a person's rights under the U. S. Constitution.

Introduction- My history day topic for 2016 is the Louisiana purchase: the deal between France and the United States and the westward expansions to this new land. A historical event that took place in the year of 1803, where america was a new land a young republic if you will where pioneers had just broken form a king and started a new land with hopes of expanding from shining sea to shining sea, the specific event that happened was that Thomas Jefferson ( the president at that time) bought land from France but more specifically he bought 828,000 thousand acres of land almost three cents an acre, this almost doubling the size of what we now call the U.S.A.

Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the defendant’s right of the sixth amendment. Clarence Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so under the 6th amendment he demonstrated his rights by asking the Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint one for him. His request was denied and he was left to represent himself (Lewis, 1964). He did an awful job of defending himself during the trial and was found guilty (PBS, 2006). He then wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court from his prison cell stating that his rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.

many different ports for trading. This also helped the United States Navy, with all these

New Yorker Magazine it states that there must be clear intent to tarnish one’s reputation in order for libel tort law to come into effect. This case was very similar in regards that there was enough evidence that suggest there was intent to hurt the reputation of those mentioned in the articles. Also in the case Anderson v. Liberty Lobby it states the plaintiff must be able to prove that there was in fact damage done to one’s reputation and be able to proof to judges that there was actual malice. As with this case, the court of appeals must take in consideration if the ruling can be made in favor of the plaintiff and that if the summary judgement would go in favor of the plaintiff. The judges want to make sure that they are not wasting time and that there was actual damage done to the plaintiff which can be awarded for punitive

The issue of Tinker v. Des Moines ISD was that students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest of the Vietnam War; however the school warned that anyone wearing the armbands would be would be suspended, but the Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended leading to Mr. and Mrs. Tinker filing a law suit claiming that the school violated the children's right to freedom of speech and expression. The court ruled against the school district saying that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech." In the case of Engle v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that prayers in schools were considered unconstitutional, leading to a ban of all prayers led by teachers in school, even if the prayer was considered voluntary, stating, in a way, that there was some sort of “separation of church and state” which is not true. Lastly, New York Times v. Sullivan focused more on the freedom of the press, ruling that “actual malice” must be proven to support a finding of libel against a public figure.

To buy or not to buy, that is the question. Although it was the greatest “real estate” deal, the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 was perhaps one of the most controversial events in American History. President Thomas Jefferson, although he was a Founding Father and the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence, faced major opposition with his decision to purchase the Louisiana Territory from the French. Most of the opposition he faced, however, was domestic.

To sum, the case is about an advertising the newspaper included some inaccurate story about the civic leaders, civil right events, and Sullivan. Sullivan (a public official) believed that the defamatory comments that were made of him were making a negative impact on his life, thus he sued the New York times. The court in Alabama at the time ruled “The law … implies legal injury from bare facts of publication itself, falsity and malice are presumed, general damages no need to presume.” Thus, the court from Alabama gave Sullivan a compensation of five hundred thousand dollars. New York times decided to take this case to the supreme court because they believe their 1st amendment rights were being violated. Therefore, a new question arose whether the first amendment protects defamatory, false statements concerning public officials? The court ruled that the 1st amendment does protect the publication of all statements, even false ones, concerning the conduct of a public official except when the statement was made with actual malice. Once again, we notice the irony of freedom of speech the issue is citizens are not informed that under the 1st amendment there is sufficient rights guarantee. It is not solely having the right to express our emotions towards the government, it is to expose information to citizens and have the citizens decided for themselves. Democracy does not work if the government or public official try to hide information from its citizens. Democracy function when there is a clear majority of press that expose the truth and allow people to determine what the issue is. Press must be able to protect us against an overreaching government. Sometimes executive power tries to control the press because they do not want to inform the truth about that for example the Watergates scandal, Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks and

Before Thomas Jefferson ever entered the presidency, he believed in the “Empire of Liberty.” He wrote in a letter to a friend that “Our confederacy must be viewed as the nest from which all America, North or South, is to be peopled.” His motives for the intense eye on American expansion were greatness for his country, as well as for himself. He was disgusted with the idea of North America being divided into nation-states like Europe. His goal was for the ideals of the American Revolution to spread over the whole continent. He passed and helped pass some of the legislation that helped early America expand. He co-authored the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which allowed for states to be made from the territory east of the Mississippi and

In 1861, the American Civil War commenced after many years of tension building between the Northern and Southern states. The main reason of the tension was said to be the debate of slavery between the North and South, and although some documents support this claim, it is false. The war had been brewing since 1607, before slavery was even introduced to the colonies that would become the United States of America. The debate of slavery did play a major part in the civil war; however it did so in supporting the true cause of the civil war. The main cause of the American Civil War was not the debate of slavery, but rather Europe’s role in the American economy.

Lewis states that this case “revolutionized the law of libel in the United States” he explains that “The old common law doctrine putting the burden on libel defendants to prove truth was reversed.” (Lewis, Pg.55) This case even resulted in affecting the law in other countries, I agree that it was the right approach to create the three laws of libel. I feel that Lewis does a great job writing this case objectively yet still allowing his readers to come to the same conclusion he does, the case was handled properly by the Supreme Court in their ending deciscion.

According to the First Amendment, it is one’s freedom to voice his/her opinions without fear of punishment and this is a fundamental right which is protected under the Constitution of the United States. However, free speech does have limits from protecting those lead to illegal activity, violence, obscenity or defamation. In this case, from my perspective, I think the Supreme Court would affirm the lower court’s decision, holding that judge’s instruction and jury’s verdict were constitutionally permissible since Donnelly is actually liable for libel and slander as she was claiming erroneous statement which directly harmed Lohrenz’s reputation.

What challenges did the “new immigrants” face (those arriving between 1877 and 1914) that previous waves of immigrants did not?  (Discuss at least 2 challenges.)