Facts
- The New York Times published a full-page paid advertisement, “Heed Their Rising Voices,” seeking funds for civil-rights activities and describing alleged mistreatment of demonstrators in the South.
- The advertisement criticized Montgomery, Alabama police conduct; several factual assertions were inaccurate or exaggerated.
- L. B. Sullivan, Montgomery’s Commissioner of Public Affairs with supervisory responsibility for the police, was not named but claimed the criticism of “the police” was “of and concerning” him.
- Under Alabama libel law as applied at trial, the jury was instructed that the statements were “libelous per se,” legal injury was presumed without proof of actual damages, and malice could be presumed from publication.
- A jury awarded Sullivan $500,000 in damages; the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
- Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments limit a state’s power to award defamation damages to a public official based on criticism of the official’s conduct.
- Whether a public official may recover for defamatory falsehoods about official conduct without proving fault, including knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
- Whether First Amendment protections apply when the challenged speech appears in a paid advertisement.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment for Sullivan.
- The Court held that a public official cannot recover defamation damages for false statements relating to official conduct unless the official proves “actual malice.”
- “Actual malice” was defined as publication with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.
- The Court ruled that paid-advertisement form does not remove constitutional protection for the expression.
- On the record, Sullivan failed to establish actual malice by the Times, so the award could not stand.
Legal Principles
- Enforcement of state defamation law through civil judgments constitutes state action subject to First and Fourteenth Amendment limits.
- Debate on public issues must be protected to remain uninhibited, robust, and wide-open; protection extends to sharp attacks on public officials’ official conduct.
- Factual error is an expected incident of public debate; liability rules must leave sufficient “breathing space” to avoid self-censorship.
- A public official seeking damages for defamation concerning official conduct must prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth), not merely falsity or presumed malice.
- Speech does not lose First Amendment protection because it is published as a paid advertisement.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated Alabama’s presumed-injury and presumed-malice approach as applied to criticism of official conduct and established that public officials may obtain defamation damages only by proving, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, that the defendant published the false statement with actual malice.