New York Times vs Sullivan

My argument is in favor for the defendant in the case between Guiles V. Marineau. After a student continuously wears a controversial and extremely detailed t-shirt received at an anti war rally, the school district and family of the student take their discrepancy to court. I found multiple sources pulled from sources such as, FindLaw's United States Second Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.)., ProCon.org. (2017, November 15), Supreme Court Upholds Vermont Student's Free Speech Rights. (n.d.). and What are the Legal Rights of Children? (n.d.). In the following, the reader will be introduced to the case, the final decision, and my assessment of the case. I have drawn a conclusion, that the School system was in the right in this case and properly

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).

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

Despite being printed for the same date, in this case January 30th, 2014, the distinction can still be made, and by this it can be said that if the titles of the newspapers were removed it would not be hard to distinguish one from the other. By placing the front page of the New York Times (NYT) and of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) side by side, the reader can piece together few similarities and a greater amount of contrast between the two. These are especially true when looking at the stories that were covered, the amount of space some stories took compared to others, and the slants many of the headlines took.

Throughout history, many cases have gone beyond local courts and have reached Supreme Court. One of the most famous cases to reach Supreme Court is Marbury v. Madison. Marbury v. Madison was a case that was fought because James Madison refused to deliver Marbury’s commission. In return, Marbury had petitioned for a writ of mandamus in order to receive his commissions. The Supreme Court had reinforced the “Marbury” decision in many cases, for example McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, and United States v. Le Baron.

Draker v. Schreiber For my argumentation paper, I have chosen to address the issue of libel as it relates to the case of Draker v. Schreiber. Libel is defined as a published false statement that is damaging to a person 's reputation. Draker v. Schreiber was taken up by the Texas

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 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 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

The court case I chose was Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts. In 1963, The Saturday Evening Post published an article alleging that Wallace Butts, the former University of Georgia football coach, and Paul "Bear" Bryant, the former University of Alamaba football coach, conspired together to fix a game in Alabama's favor. The Post's source was an insurance salesman who claimed he overheard a phone conversation between the two men. Butts filed a libel suit against Curtis Publishing, the owner of the magazine. Butts won the suit, but after the Supreme Court's ruling in New York Times Company v. Sullivan, Curtis Publishing requested a new trial. The new trial was denied, because Butts was not a public official and there was

Albo 1 Harrison Albo Mrs. Knotts 3 English H February 27, 2012 The Pentagon Papers Case In the past, there has always been conflict between the free press and the government. This conflict was very evident in the Pentagon Papers case, also known as New York Times Co. v. United States. Historically, the Supreme Court has

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.

The Proposal Media is everywhere, but determining what an accurate picture of reality is can be difficult. With all of the mainstream corporations out there, giving the people the full truth is not as important as protecting their economic interest. End The Lie leaves you with unanswered questions, while questioning the information given. However, The New York Times’ perspective of the Russian proposal to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control goes more in depth and is more reliable than the alternative source End The Lie.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE Respondent L. B. Sullivan was one of the three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. The civil libel action case was brought against four individual petitioners, who were Negroes and Alabama clergymen, and against petitioner the New York Times Company, which publishes the New York Times. The Respondent alleged that libelous statements were made against him in a full-page ad entitled, "Heed Their Rising Voices," that was published in the New York Times on March 29, 1960. In the opening words of the advertisement, it states "As the whole world knows by now, thousands of Southern Negro students are engaged in widespread non-violent demonstrations in positive affirmation of the right to live in human dignity as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights." The ad continued, "in their efforts to uphold these guarantees, they are being met by an unprecedented wave of terror by those who would deny and negate that document which the whole world looks upon as setting the pattern for modern freedom…" The following paragraphs sought to describe the "wave of terror" using events alleged to have happened. In conclusion, the text appealed for funds for three purposes: the support of the student movement, "the struggle for the right-to-vote," and the legal defense of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader of the movement, against a perjury indictment that was pending at that time in Montgomery.

In fact, in 1974, in the case Gertz V Welsh, the court expanded the condition of fault to include private plaintiff (private citizens as opposed to public figures), making the following argument: “private plaintiff suing the media for defamation must prove a minimum standard of fault known as negligence” (81). As we can see from these cases, the court’s evolving standards did change the balance of competing interests, as it has become harder over the years to prove or win a defamation case whether it’s a private citizen or even more so for a public figure (it was much easier under the common law). As David Anderson writes, in this period (between 1964-1974), “the courts decided twenty-seven cases, most of them expanding constitutional