Question
Question
How has one specific Supreme Court ruling expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official’s ability to press for libel?(1 point)
Responses
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.
Near v. Minnesota determined that libel is allowed if it serves the interest of the public.
Near v. Minnesota determined that libel is allowed if it serves the interest of the public.
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. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.
How has one specific Supreme Court ruling expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official’s ability to press for libel?(1 point)
Responses
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.
Near v. Minnesota determined that libel is allowed if it serves the interest of the public.
Near v. Minnesota determined that libel is allowed if it serves the interest of the public.
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. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
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 ruling significantly expanded freedom of speech by protecting the press from liability in libel cases involving public officials, unless it can be shown that the statements were made with "actual malice," meaning with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
**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 ruling significantly expanded freedom of speech by protecting the press from liability in libel cases involving public officials, unless it can be shown that the statements were made with "actual malice," meaning with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.