How has one specific Supreme Court ruling expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official’s ability to press for libel?(1 point)

Question

Responses

Adams v. Jefferson determined that pursuing charges of libel is unconstitutional.
Adams v. Jefferson determined that pursuing charges of libel is unconstitutional.

New York Times v. United States determined that libel is allowed in certain instances.
New York Times v. United States determined that libel is allowed in certain instances.

New York Times v. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.
New York Times v. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.

Near v. Minnesota determined that libel is allowed if it serves the interest of the public.

Answer 1

The correct response is:

New York Times v. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.

This landmark decision established that public officials must demonstrate that a statement is made with "actual malice" — meaning that it was made knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth — in order to successfully sue for libel. This ruling significantly expanded freedom of speech by making it more difficult for public figures to silence criticism or dissent through libel lawsuits.