New York Times vs. Sullivan
Part 1: Situation Background.
Who:
· New York Times Newspaper
· Martin Luther King Jr.
· Commisioner L.B. Sullivan
· Alabama Supreme Court
What Happened:
· New York Times Publishes article concerning the grievances of black southerners in Alabama as well as notes Martin Luther King Jr.’s arrest
· L.B. Sullivan, Commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama accuses the Newspaper of libel
· He wins a $500,000 settlement from the Alabama Supreme Court
Where & When:
· Montgomery, Alabama
· Initial offenses found in 1963-1964
How and Why it was brought to the Supreme Court:
· Alabama’s law against proving libelous content malicious seemed to infringe on First Amendment Rights of speech and press
Part 2: The Supreme Court
Details:
· Case was heard under Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Court
· Writ of Certiorari was approved within a year of the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on the $500,000 settlement to Sullivan
· Amicus Curiae Briefs for reversal:
William Rogers, Gerald Siegel, and Stanley Godofsky of the Washington Post Company, and by Howard Ellis, Keith Masters and Don H. Reuben for the Tribune Company; by Edward S. Greenbaum, Harriet F. Pilpel, Melvin L. Wulf, Nanette Dembitz and Nancy F. Wechsler for the American Civil Liberties Union et al
· Briefs against reversal:
M. Roland Nachman Jr. in correspondence with Sam Rice Baker and Calvin Whitesell
Oral Arguments:
· For reversal
o The newspaper article was simply sympathizing with black grievances in the south
o No names besides Martin Luther King Jr. were stated within the article
o There was no name calling or accusations to any other party besides broad claims
· Against Reversal
o Untruthful statements concerning the terms of Martin Luther King Jr.’s arrest and imprisonment
o Perceived vilification of police officers and their actions towards blacks
o With this vilification comes the assumption that Sullivan is also to blame since police report back to him
Opinion of the Court and Ruling:
· Unanimous 9 to 0 ruling to reverse the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court
· Grounds: Malicious intent must be established and proven, otherwise the first and fourteenth amendment protect the right to speech and press.
Why this is a landmark case:
· It opens the door for public criticism of its political figures
· Protects the rights of speech and press even if negative connotation is perceived.
Part 3: My Opinion
· Based on careful deliberation, I would come to the same conclusion as the Court did in reversing the Alabama Supreme Court ruling allowing damages to be paid to Commissioner Sullivan. Due to the first amendment protecting the freedom of speech and press, it is difficult for me to see where a violation has occurred. Moreover, if we continue to shield public authority for the American people, they will become increasingly egregious in their offenses against the state and its people. Finally, public officials have a duty to their constituents as determined by the constitution. If they fail, citizens have the right to seek peaceful ways towards improvement.
Who:
· New York Times Newspaper
· Martin Luther King Jr.
· Commisioner L.B. Sullivan
· Alabama Supreme Court
What Happened:
· New York Times Publishes article concerning the grievances of black southerners in Alabama as well as notes Martin Luther King Jr.’s arrest
· L.B. Sullivan, Commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama accuses the Newspaper of libel
· He wins a $500,000 settlement from the Alabama Supreme Court
Where & When:
· Montgomery, Alabama
· Initial offenses found in 1963-1964
How and Why it was brought to the Supreme Court:
· Alabama’s law against proving libelous content malicious seemed to infringe on First Amendment Rights of speech and press
Part 2: The Supreme Court
Details:
· Case was heard under Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Court
· Writ of Certiorari was approved within a year of the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on the $500,000 settlement to Sullivan
· Amicus Curiae Briefs for reversal:
William Rogers, Gerald Siegel, and Stanley Godofsky of the Washington Post Company, and by Howard Ellis, Keith Masters and Don H. Reuben for the Tribune Company; by Edward S. Greenbaum, Harriet F. Pilpel, Melvin L. Wulf, Nanette Dembitz and Nancy F. Wechsler for the American Civil Liberties Union et al
· Briefs against reversal:
M. Roland Nachman Jr. in correspondence with Sam Rice Baker and Calvin Whitesell
Oral Arguments:
· For reversal
o The newspaper article was simply sympathizing with black grievances in the south
o No names besides Martin Luther King Jr. were stated within the article
o There was no name calling or accusations to any other party besides broad claims
· Against Reversal
o Untruthful statements concerning the terms of Martin Luther King Jr.’s arrest and imprisonment
o Perceived vilification of police officers and their actions towards blacks
o With this vilification comes the assumption that Sullivan is also to blame since police report back to him
Opinion of the Court and Ruling:
· Unanimous 9 to 0 ruling to reverse the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court
· Grounds: Malicious intent must be established and proven, otherwise the first and fourteenth amendment protect the right to speech and press.
Why this is a landmark case:
· It opens the door for public criticism of its political figures
· Protects the rights of speech and press even if negative connotation is perceived.
Part 3: My Opinion
· Based on careful deliberation, I would come to the same conclusion as the Court did in reversing the Alabama Supreme Court ruling allowing damages to be paid to Commissioner Sullivan. Due to the first amendment protecting the freedom of speech and press, it is difficult for me to see where a violation has occurred. Moreover, if we continue to shield public authority for the American people, they will become increasingly egregious in their offenses against the state and its people. Finally, public officials have a duty to their constituents as determined by the constitution. If they fail, citizens have the right to seek peaceful ways towards improvement.