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.
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.
1 answer
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 expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official's ability to press for libel, as it set a higher standard of proof for defamation claims and reinforced the importance of protecting public discourse and criticism of public officials.