police force of Montgomery, Alabama and other southern cities. It stated that, “In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang ‘My Country Tis of Thee’ on the State Capitol Steps, their leaders were expelled from school and truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus.” The advertisement later commented that, “Small wonder that the Southern violators of the Constitution fear this new, non-violent brand of freedom fighters…” In other words, the advertisement was attempting to create an image of peaceful protestors being forcibly and illegally put down by various police forces. Although no one was explicitly in the advertisement, Montgomery City Commissioner L.B. Sullivan was one of a few who believed that the criticism of the actions by the police force was a defamation of not only his reputation, but his position as supervisor of the police department as well. The day after the advertisement was printed, Sullivan wrote a letter to the New York Times stating that, “the advertisement charged him with ‘grave misconduct’ and ‘improper actions and omissions as an official of the City of Montgomery.” He then requested that the New York Times publish, “a full and fair retraction of the entire false and defamatory matter.” He also sent letters to four individuals whose names were included in the advertisement as a part of members of the Southern community who had endorsed it. They were all African American ministers in Alabama and they would later testify that until Sullivan informed them of the advertisement, they had never even known of its existence. Following Sullivan’s letter to the newspaper, the attorneys representing The New York Times replied to him stating that, “We are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements [in the ad] reflect on you.” Sullivan neglected to respond to this letter, and instead on April 19, filed a libel action in
producers of perishable foods; in many ways the provisions of each state’s statute are analogous, but some provisions vary. The state to adopt one of these statutes was Colorado in 1991. In the wake of the Auvil vs. CBS controversial case, a Colorado state representative, who also happened to be an apple producer, proposed a food disparagement bill. The bill was passed by the legislature but was then vetoed by the state Governor. The Governor argued the First Amendment right to freedom of speech as his reason for vetoing the bill. Because of this veto, Colorado has no statutory cause of action for agricultural and food disparagement. The state legislature evaded the Governor’s veto by amending a state criminal statute to include a provision that made it illegal to make false and disparaging statements about food products. Colorado is the only one of the thirteen states that does not have an independent statute for food disparagement. All of the statutes share one thing in common, that is they strictly apply to “perishable” food products. The reasoning behind this is that false statements should not seriously adversely affect products whose marketability is not diminished by time. The assumption is that eventually the truth will come out and the demand for these products will recover. Perishable products that only have a short shelf life are more likely to endure negative effects. The statutes are somewhat similar in structures, in addition to all providing protection for perishable food products. For example, Ohio, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida and Alabama have almost identical statutes that contain four general provisions. The first is a statement that indicates why it is important to protect food products. The second is a short definitions section of what the provisions of the law mean, as in what does disparagement and perishable mean. The third is a statement of