The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: January 6, 1964
1/6/1964: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan argued.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is the first NYT v Sullivan post, with no comments yet.
Josh has been uncharacteristically silent recently. Perhaps his clone has taken over and is having (even more) problems with these "Today in Supreme Court History" posts.
Well well. The dup with actual comments disappeared in favor of this one.
Well, I'll retype what I wrote earlier today on the other one -- when you look at the actual "libel" in the ad, it's a case of "you gotta be kidding." It's a pity that SCOTUS had to write such a broad opinion and couldn't just limit it to minor "harmless" errors about something that was basically true -- a disinterested reader would have reached the same conclusion upon reading the work without the errors.
Like, ummm, MLK2 was arrested 29 times, or 31 times, or 27 times -- at a certain point, does the exact number really matter???
Dr. Ed, the problem is libel is a state law issue. So a federal court actually has no power to issue a really narrow ruling saying "you got the state law wrong".
And the fact that the libel case was so transparently phony here and yet a state court system not only awarded substantial damages but then affirmed those damages through its appellate courts, shows you that there was a threat to free speech.
One of the most important parts of Sullivan isn't its actual malice holding that everyone knows but its ruling that where a state court judgment threatens the First Amendment, there is federal jurisdiction to independently review the facts as well as the law to determine if there is a First Amendment violation. That is a breathtaking expansion of federal jurisdiction, but it was a necessary one.
There's a lot of stuff the Warren court did that is legitimately controversial- but this one, Gideon, and Brown seem to me to be the ones that everyone ought to agree upon.