New York Times V Sullivan Case Analysis

The Lexington Herald argued that the appellant was a public figure and would be required to prove actual malice in order to win his libel lawsuit. Appellees’ for The Lexington News Herald argued that the prominence of Pittsburgh’s Division I status in the NCAA labeled Warford as a public figure. Moreover, the appellees’ argued that Warford had to be a public figure because his position and recruiting activities voluntarily injected himself into the public controversy regarding the recruiting of college athletes.

Please give the facts and significance of the two cases, mentioned on your weekly page, involving school searches: NJ v. TLO and Redding v. Safford School District. What is the difference between searches conducted in schools and those conducted in public? NJ v. TLO case was about a female who was caught smoking in her school bathroom. When she was searched money was found on her and list of people who owed her money and weed. In another case Redding v. Safford School District, “Savana Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School, was strip-searched by school officials on the basis of a tip by another student that Ms. Redding might have ibuprofen on her person in violation of school policy” (Safford Unified School District v. Redding,

Facts: John Angus Smith attempted to trade a Mac 10 machine gun for 2 ounces of cocaine. Smith was then arrested for possession of cocaine and a fully automatic weapon. Federal law requires a mandatory minimum prison sentence for 30 years if a machine gun is "used" in the commission of a drug offense, and because these two things were used in conjunction, Smith was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Abel Fields of California, attended a meeting about public safety. He was explaining his military experience gave him knowledge to speak with authority about public safety issues. He had served in the military for eight years. Fields claims was false. He prosecuted and convicted under the stolen valor act. Fields appealed to the 9th circuit court appeals. The 9th Circuit ruled in his favor.

New York v. Sullivan (1964) involves the petitioner the New York Times Company and the respondent City Commissoner L.B. Sullivan and was decided on March 9th 1964. According to Oyez, a brief history the case was “decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan (1964), this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King 's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Previously, according to the Alabama Encyclopedia, “Under Alabama law, belief in the truth of statements did not excuse libel, although it could be used as a factor when determining punitive damages. During the trial in Montgomery 's circuit court, six local residents testified that they believed the statements in paragraphs three and six referred to Sullivan personally. Therefore as a remedy sought in the lower courts, the jury awarded Sullivan $500,000, which was affirmed by the State Supreme Court after an appeal by the NYT, The New York Times

The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

As part of their journalism class students produced a newspaper with a collection of student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. As a result, the principal made the decision to delete the two articles from that edition of the school’s newspaper. Consequently, three students sued the school district alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.

Abel Fields a 39-year-old resident of a city in California, was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act. He was convicted under that act because he claimed that he was in the military and that he received medals while serving, which is not true. He was found guilty and they sentenced him to pay a fine of $1,000 dollars. After that, he appealed his decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing that the Stolen Act was unconstitutional and that the First Amendment had been violated. Fields’s prosecutors argued that “a lie told about oneself and one’s own accomplishments is easier to reverse through other speech. Indeed, in Mr. Fields’s case, an effective way to reverse Mr. Fields’s falsehoods is to simply point out his lie.” Afterwards, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor. Over time, people are starting to see how people, states and even the court violate their First Amendment rights. First we have the case of The New York Times who printed an advertisement where it clearly was accusing the Alabama police department of misdeeds. The police commissioner, L. B. Sullivan sued New York Times and their writers for the advertisement. The case became to be known as the New York Times Co. V. Sullivan (1963) case. After the case went to court, the judgement in favor of Sullivan had to be overturned, and New York Times could not be convicted of libel. What this demonstrate about the right of making false statements is that in order for someone to be

John C. Maxwell once said “There are two kinds of pride, both good and bad. ‘Good pride' represents our dignity and self-respect. ‘Bad pride' is the deadly sin of superiority that reeks of conceit and arrogance.” Meaning that Fields was well aware of the consequences, but fails to acknowledge them in hopes of impressing the mass. I do agree with the fact that he did not harm anyone because of his lie and therefore his rights should be protected. However, he did it with intention, with the example of a previous case of the New York Times V. Sullivan involved a newspaper company printing false statements about a police department. The court ruled that the person cannot be victim of libel (false-statements) unless he/she acted with malice. This has correlation with the fields case because Fields acted with Malice and thus ruining the integrity of such a medal to the people who have actually earned the medal through their service. Therefore, instead of being subject to libel he should be punished because he also violated another rule which I will follow through in my second

New Jersey v. T.L.O, a supreme court case that took the stands in 1985, involved a fourteen year old freshman in highschool and a New Jersey public high school in which the minor attended. The minor by which public record only shows her by her initials T.L.O, was caught smoking cigarettes with another student in her high school’s bathroom during the school day. This act of smoking in the bathroom was against school policy as it was only seen fit to smoke in the school’s designated smoking areas. This court case was used to argue students rights in searches in public schools.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, lawful case in which, on March 9, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court governed consistently (9–0) that, for a slander suit to be effective, the complainant must demonstrate that the guilty proclamation was made with " 'genuine perniciousness', with learning that it was false or with neglectful failure of whether it was the truth or not." Specifically, the case included a notice that showed up in The New York Times in March 1960 that sketched out how African Americans had been persecuted and that requested that perusers contribute cash to the battle to end racial isolation in the South.

Author Larry Kramer has the better argument because he has more variety and evidence that makes sense. For example, Kramer says, “[The Supreme Court] rules on our rights when accused of a crime, on whether the state can execute someone, on how much money we can give to a political candidate, and even on who we have the right to marry.” (pg. 22).This evidence makes sense to the reader and shows them how much power the Supreme Court really has. Kramer also states, “[The Founding Fathers] expected the Court to review laws, but they didn't intend for it to have the final word on whether a law is constitutional.”(pg.22). This shows that the Supreme Court has gained more pawer than it was supposed to and has started to overpower our

The case New York Times Co. Vs United States in summary was a first amendment battle between the United States government and the prominent newspaper cooperation New York Times in 1971. The premises of this legal battle was based on the New York Times reporter Daniel Ellsberg publishing in excerpts illegally leaked, classified documents containing the United States involvement in the Vietnam War specifically on the anticipated death counts (Institution, 2015, p. n .p). However, The United States government finding out about leakage placed a prior restraint also known as “government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place” on New York Times cooperation based on National Security grounds (Prior Restraint, 2015). The case, despite the over powering strength of the nation and the accusations against the New York Times Cooperation the case was ruled in favor of the New York Times by the Supreme Court (Curry, Riley, & Battistoni, 2015, p. 458).

Fields is to disagree that he is protected by the First Amendment. In past decisions, the Supreme Court has made certain that there are categories and an extent of speech that is protected by the First Amendment which free speech is not unlimited. False speech may damage order in our society and morality which could interrupt the order that was put forth when protecting your statement. As I state that the First Amendment is constitutional and does not protect false speech, Fields should be guilty because it disrespects, corrupt claims that does damage the symbolic meaning to the medal and reputation.

The concept that marriage can occur, endure, and succeed without the factor of love seems to be common in many other places in the world. “Who Needs Love! In Japan, Many Couples Don’t,” by Nicholas D. Kristof published in the New York Times in 1996 explores the aspects and success of loveless marriage in Japan beginning with Yuri Uemura of Omiya, Japan.