1. 1 st Amendment Presentation By: Group Two

2. New York Times Company v. Sullivan Final Ruling States: “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

3. The Five “W”s O Who….…………………... O What……………………... L. B. Sullivan & The New York Times Libel Suit

4. The Five “W”s O When…………………….. O Where……………………. March 29, 1960 Montgomery, Alabama

5. The Five “W”s O Why……………………..... Sullivan claimed Freedom of Speech only applied when telling the truth

6. How? O On March 29, 1960, the New York Times printed a full-page advertisement paid for by two black civil rights organizations. L. B. Sullivan, read the advertisement and decided to bring a libel suit against the New York Times. O Sullivan's name was not mentioned, but he was offended because he was in charge of the Montgomery police department. So he claimed that false and exaggerated charges against the city police were slanders against him in his role as police commissioner. O State courts in Alabama decided in favor of Sullivan

7. The Issue O L. B. Sullivan argued that the advertisement in this case was libelous because it contained untrue statements. He claimed that the Constitution does not protect speech that is false or misleading. The New York Times argued that the libel law of Alabama, which permitted restrictions on untrue speech, was an infringement on 1st Amendment freedoms to express criticisms of public officials. To what extent do constitutional protections of free speech limit a state government's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a government official against his critics?

8. Final Ruling O The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court. O Justice William Brennan argued that the Alabama libel law threatened 1st Amendment freedoms of speech and press by “raising… the possibility that a good-faith critic of government will be penalized for his criticism.” Brennan said that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

9. Significance O This decision has made it very difficult for public officials to bring libel actions against the media. As a result, freedom of expression about the actions of government has been greatly expanded. The media have been encouraged to play the role of watchdog and exposer of questionable or improper actions by public officials, such as corrupt or foolish behavior.