How has one specific Supreme Court ruling expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official's ability to press for libel? (1 point) 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. Near v. Minnesota determined that libel is allowed if it serves the interest of the public . New York Times v. Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official .

Answer 1

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 establishing a higher standard of proof for public officials when bringing libel suits. It recognized that in order to protect the freedom of the press and encourage robust public discourse, public officials must prove that false statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This limitation on a public official's ability to press for libel provides greater protection for individuals to express their opinions and criticism of public figures without fear of legal repercussions.