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

Question

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. 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. 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 prove "actual malice"—meaning that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth—to win a libel suit. This standard significantly expanded freedom of speech by making it more difficult for public officials to silence critics through libel lawsuits.