The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department. The trial judge instructed the jury that such statements were "libelous per se," legal injury being implied without proof of actual damages, and that, for the purpose of compensatory damages, malice was presumed, so that such damages could be awarded against petitioners if the statements were found to have been published by them and to have related to respondent. As to punitive damages, the judge instructed that mere negligence was not evidence of actual malice, and would not justify an award of punitive damages; he refused to instruct that actual intent to harm or recklessness had to be found before punitive damages could be awarded, or that a verdict for respondent should differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages. The jury found for respondent, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.
These cases forcefully call to mind the wise admonition of Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting in Northern Securities Co. United States, U. Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law.
For great cases are called great not by reason of their [p] real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment.
These immediate interests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of law will bend. With all respect, I consider that the Court has been almost irresponsibly feverish in dealing with these cases.
The application of the United States for interim relief in the Post case was also filed here on June 24 at about 7: The record in the Post case was filed with the Clerk shortly before 1 p.
The briefs of the parties were received less than two hours before argument on June This frenzied train of events took place in the name of the presumption against prior restraints created by the First Amendment.
Due regard for the extraordinarily important and difficult questions involved in these litigations should have led the Court to shun such a precipitate timetable.
In order to decide the merits of these cases properly, some or all of the following questions should have been faced: Whether the Attorney General is authorized to bring these suits in the name of the United States.
Compare [p] In re Debs, U. This question involves as well the construction and validity of a singularly opaque statute -- the Espionage Act, 18 U. Whether the First Amendment permits the federal courts to enjoin publication of stories which would present a serious threat to national security.
Whether the threat to publish highly secret documents is of itself a sufficient implication of national security to justify an injunction on the theory that, regardless of the contents of the documents, harm enough results simply from the demonstration of such a breach of secrecy.
Whether the unauthorized disclosure of any of these particular documents would seriously impair the national security. What weight should be given to the opinion of high officers in the Executive Branch of the Government with respect to questions 3 and 4. The strong First Amendment policy against prior restraints on publication; [p] b.
The doctrine against enjoining conduct in violation of criminal statutes; and c. The extent to which the materials at issue have apparently already been otherwise disseminated. These are difficult questions of fact, of law, and of judgment; the potential consequences of erroneous decision are enormous.
The time which has been available to us, to the lower courts, and to the parties has been wholly inadequate for giving these cases the kind of consideration they deserve. It is a reflection on the stability of the judicial process that these great issues -- as important as any that have arisen during my time on the Court -- should have been decided under the pressures engendered by the torrent of publicity that has attended these litigations from their inception.
Forced as I am to reach the merits of these cases, I dissent from the opinion and judgments of the Court.In Spain, freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy.
It is a constitution law that comes from the Spanish Constitution of In the New York Times v. Sullivan case the United States Supreme Court established what the press could write and publish about individuals, New York Times Co. v. The New York Times thereafter filed a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States, which was accepted.
Decision Overview The Supreme Court of the United States held that Alabama’s libel laws were wholly inadequate in terms of providing newspapers with the constitutional freedoms of speech and the press. FINAL chp 4.
STUDY. PLAY. Bill of Rights. Freedom of expression. Free expression recently has been strongly supported by the Supreme Court. New York Times Co.
v. United States; "Pentagon Papers" that proved how officials had deceived the public on the reality of Vietnam war were printed in the Times. What is the leading case in. o Statements were fact, but L.B. Sullivan, police commissioner of Montgomery, filed a claim against the NY Times and some of the civil rights leaders for damages o Sullivan's name was not in the statement, but claimed the statement was "of and concerning" him.
TMZ won because they republished the statements from the New York Attorney General's office. The statements are not found libel because of the use of "accused" and "alleged" vs "convicted." Milkovich v. The New York Times thereafter filed a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States, which was accepted. Decision Overview The Supreme Court of the United States held that Alabama’s libel laws were wholly inadequate in terms of providing newspapers with the constitutional freedoms of speech and the press. Case opinion for US Supreme Court NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.
New York, U. S. , decided in , that it was intimated that the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment was applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Other intimations followed. Case opinion for US Supreme Court NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.