How has one specific Supreme Court ruling expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public official’s ability to press for libel?(1 point)

Question

Responses

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. 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.

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 Supreme Court ruling expanded freedom of speech by establishing that public officials must demonstrate "actual malice" (i.e., knowledge that the information was false or reckless disregard for the truth) in order to win a libel case. This ruling protects the press and enables more robust public discourse, particularly regarding criticism of public figures.