The 50th Anniversary of New York Times v. Sullivan
From the perspective of a first-year law student
By: Jamie Inferrera
The Warren Court (named for then Chief Justice Earl Warren) was comprised of Associate Justices Hugo L. Black, William J. Brennan, Jr. (author of the New York Times opinion), Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Arthur J. Goldberg, John M. Harlan, Potter Stewart, and Byron R. White.
It is a rite of passage in a student’s first year of law school: the study and discussion of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Now 50 years later, we reflect upon how this landmark decision has forever transformed the landscape of journalism.
The First Amendment has long established the freedom of speech and of the press. However, before 1964, claims initiated by public officials in response to alleged erroneous commentary were likely brought under the common law tort of defamation. The New York Times decision, which was handed down unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court during a tumultuous time in our nation’s history, has revolutionized common law defamation claims by public officials.
As Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote in the High Court’s opinion, “we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle 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.”
The New York Times decision established the standard of “actual malice” in lawsuits between public officials and the mass media. The High Court held that public officials must demonstrate that the information disseminated was untrue and the publishers of the information had knowledge of the false information or acted in a reckless disregard for the truth. The Court set a profound precedent.
The media effect of the New York Times decision has been described as both “immediate and long term,” according to David Jamison, provost and senior vice president of academic affairs at Robert Morris University and adjunct professor at Duquesne University School of Law. Jamison followed by stating that the High Court’s decision has demonstrated a continuous application in many cases, with both media and non-mass media defendants alike.
The New York Times decision has also been deemed to play a significant role in the increase in investigate journalism, reminiscent of the Bernstein and Woodward reporting duo who shed light on the Watergate scandal. Jamison believes that the New York Times decision has fulfilled that of which the Justices intended to set forth, creating “breathing room” for the media.
Andrew Conte, investigate reporter for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, recalls discussing New York Times v. Sullivan while studying journalism. “The Supreme Court did a great job of providing protections for journalists,” Conte said.
Not everyone, however, has a favorable opinion of the High Court’s decision. In 2011, Justice Antonin Scalia commented that the decision to amend the standard for libel and defamation should have been left to the legislative branch. Further, Justice Scalia said in reference to the “actual malice” standard, that “[George] Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea anymore.”
During her U.S. Supreme Court confirmation, Justice Elena Kagan was quoted as saying that she believes “[t]he Framers of the Constitution did not understand the First Amendment as extending to libelous speech. The Court’s precedents, however, have applied the First Amendment to bar many defamation actions.” Justice Kagan also expressed reservations that while the New York Times standard is essential to free speech, it could leave no remedy for a plaintiff’s damaged reputation.
Conte, who also teaches journalism at Point Park University, commented that journalists cannot hide behind the veil of the New York Times standard. “Reporters have to make an attempt to get the real story,” Conte said. “The key I share with journalism students is: turn it around. If you were the subject, would you say that you made a sincere attempt to make the story as honest as possible?”
With the rapid evolution of technology, as well as the increased use of the Internet and social media, the average American can now become a published writer, commentator, and critic all with taps on the keyboard and a stroke of a button. What will first-year law students have to say over the course of the next 50 years about the application of the New York Times decision and the development of the “actual malice” standard? Only time will tell.
