Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:09:24+00:00

Document:
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press.
Brennan, joined by Warren, Clark, Harlan, Stewart, White.
Justice William J. Brennan, decision, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Supreme Court of the United States, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
Justice Hugo Black, decision, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Supreme Court of the United States, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
Justice Arthur Joseph Goldberg, decision, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Supreme Court of the United States, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized. Such criticism cannot, in my opinion, be muzzled or deterred by the courts at the instance of public officials under the label of libel.
American law as prescribed in the leading case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for a public official to prevail and obtain damages for libel or slander.
Alexander, Kern; Klint Alexander (2010). Higher Education Law: Policy and Perspectives. Routledge. p. 358. ISBN 0415800307.
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court reviewed an Alabama jury's award of damages to state officials who had been criticized in an editorial advertisement published in the New York Times. Realizing that politically motivated defamation actions could chill speech essential to informed self-government, the Court carved out a category of defamation for First Amendment protection.It thus adopted an "actual malice" standard that requires public officials to prove that an allegedly defamatory statement about them was made with knowledge of the falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.
Lively, Donald E.; Russell L. Weaver (2006). Contemporary Supreme Court Cases: Landmark Decisions Since Roe v. Wade. Greenwood. p. 76. ISBN 9780313335143.
Could a city government official in Montgomery, Alabama, for example, use the libel laws of the state to successfuly sue and punish the publisher and managers of a newspaper for printing words he perceived as defamatory? Or could the publisher of a newspaper, such as the New York Times, claim its right under the First Amendment to decide what to print and distribute to the public, despite a state government's libel laws? These constitutional issues were raised and settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).
Hall, Kermit; John J. Patrick (2006). The Pursuit of Justice: Supreme Court Decisions that Shaped America. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 141. ISBN 0195325680.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan afforded the Supreme Court the opportunity to craft the most vigorous affirmation of the freedom of the press in the history of American constitutional law.
Schultz, David (2005). Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. Facts on File. p. 313. ISBN 9780816050864.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a victory both for the Civil Rights movement and for press freedom. It forever put to rest the notion that the first Amendment was merely a prohibition on prior restraints. It also reflected the theory that political speech lies at the core of the First Amendment's protection.
Lidsky, Lyrissa Barnett; R. George Wright (2004). Freedom of the Press: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Praeger. p. 68. ISBN 0313315973.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.