vs NEW YORK TIMES. SULLIVAN
In 1960 a group of People published a declaration in the New York Times, referring to the struggle of black students for their right to live in dignity, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Mention was made of certain facts that have occurred generating a wave of terror in this sectarian groups.
The request stated that on one occasion, after students sang a patriotic hymn in the state legislature, its leaders were expelled from the university and suffered a brutal police repression. Also if you made mention of the persecution suffered by Luther King.
LD Sullivan, commissioner of the city of Montgomery, expressing grievance for such publication, initiated civil action for libel against New York Times to feel involved in the events described, and that his office oversaw the police department acted in the event.
The trial court upheld the claims of Sullivan and awarded the damages claimed. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Alabama.
The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision on the grounds that although they were not accredited all the episodes described in the request, the debate on public issues should be open and uninhibited in accordance with the principles set out in the form republican government. So reasoned that the constitutional protection Press freedom is not lost on the false or libelous content of the publication, since otherwise it would give rise to self-censorship. Therefore, before the publication of offensive data to a public official, the liability of journalistic medium was conditioned to provide proof of malice, the news had been published with knowledge that it was false or with remarkable nonchalance about its veracity , ie the test was in charge of the applicant. For
Sullivan failed to establish that the signatories of the requested knew the falsity of the published expressions, or that they acted with gross negligence on whether they were or not true.
For the newspaper, the plaintiff failed to show that the New York Times could have detected the inaccuracy of the notice, checking your own records. However, the newspaper claimed to have relied on the goodwill of the signatories of the request and that the failure to concerned about making deeper control, was because the ad in question contained no personal attack, for that reason, although there was some negligence on the part of the paper, there was no proof of malice is required.
Note that it is not requested or indirectly referred to Mr. Sullivan, and had been given the opportunity to demonstrate that had not been involved in the events described.
In fact, three of the four arrests and even the bombing they suffered at home Dr. King, had occurred prior to Mr. Sullivan is appointed commissioner.
precedential This failure leaves the development of the doctrine of actual malice, which means that a public officer aggrieved by a false story, can not get compensation for injury, unless he proves that the media knew the inaccurate press publication or not bother to find out.
In 1960 a group of People published a declaration in the New York Times, referring to the struggle of black students for their right to live in dignity, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Mention was made of certain facts that have occurred generating a wave of terror in this sectarian groups.
The request stated that on one occasion, after students sang a patriotic hymn in the state legislature, its leaders were expelled from the university and suffered a brutal police repression. Also if you made mention of the persecution suffered by Luther King.
LD Sullivan, commissioner of the city of Montgomery, expressing grievance for such publication, initiated civil action for libel against New York Times to feel involved in the events described, and that his office oversaw the police department acted in the event.
The trial court upheld the claims of Sullivan and awarded the damages claimed. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Alabama.
The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision on the grounds that although they were not accredited all the episodes described in the request, the debate on public issues should be open and uninhibited in accordance with the principles set out in the form republican government. So reasoned that the constitutional protection Press freedom is not lost on the false or libelous content of the publication, since otherwise it would give rise to self-censorship. Therefore, before the publication of offensive data to a public official, the liability of journalistic medium was conditioned to provide proof of malice, the news had been published with knowledge that it was false or with remarkable nonchalance about its veracity , ie the test was in charge of the applicant. For
Sullivan failed to establish that the signatories of the requested knew the falsity of the published expressions, or that they acted with gross negligence on whether they were or not true.
For the newspaper, the plaintiff failed to show that the New York Times could have detected the inaccuracy of the notice, checking your own records. However, the newspaper claimed to have relied on the goodwill of the signatories of the request and that the failure to concerned about making deeper control, was because the ad in question contained no personal attack, for that reason, although there was some negligence on the part of the paper, there was no proof of malice is required.
Note that it is not requested or indirectly referred to Mr. Sullivan, and had been given the opportunity to demonstrate that had not been involved in the events described.
In fact, three of the four arrests and even the bombing they suffered at home Dr. King, had occurred prior to Mr. Sullivan is appointed commissioner.
precedential This failure leaves the development of the doctrine of actual malice, which means that a public officer aggrieved by a false story, can not get compensation for injury, unless he proves that the media knew the inaccurate press publication or not bother to find out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment