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 Adams v. Jefferson determined that pursuing charges of libel is unconstitutional. Near v. Minnesota determined that libel is allowed if it serves the interest of the public. 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.

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 Adams v. Jefferson determined that pursuing charges of libel is unconstitutional.  Near v. Minnesota determined that libel is allowed if it serves the interest of the public.  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.

GPT 3.5 · 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 setting a higher standard for public officials to prove that they have been defamed. It limited their ability to easily press for libel charges, as they now have to demonstrate that the statement in question was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This ruling protects the rights of individuals to criticize public officials without fear of facing frivolous libel lawsuits.