Also known as: NY Times rule · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · actual malice · Sullivan standard
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional standard in defamation law that requires a public official or public figure plaintiff to prove that the defendant published a false statement with actual malice. Actual malice exists when the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. The standard protects robust public debate by shielding the press from liability for honest mistakes while still allowing recovery when the publisher proceeds despite a high degree of awareness of probable falsity.
A national magazine interviewed Nadia Novak, a prominent senator, about her legislative record. The published article changed her statement from supporting a modest tax increase to endorsing a sweeping overhaul that would double rates. Novak sued for defamation. The alteration created a materially different meaning that a jury could find demonstrated knowledge of falsity.
Nexus Financial issued a credit report to five subscribers stating that Navarro Industries faced imminent insolvency. The report contained no reference to any public controversy. Navarro Industries sued for defamation and sought presumed damages. Because the speech concerned a private matter, the company could recover without proving actual malice.
Northern Manufacturing posted on its website that Nestor Navarro, a local contractor, had overbilled clients. Navarro was not a public figure. He sued for defamation and proved the statement was false and published with negligence. The court permitted recovery of actual damages but required proof of actual malice for any presumed or punitive award.
A cable network aired a parody sketch depicting Noah Nakamura, a well-known governor, confessing to bribery in exaggerated fashion. Nakamura sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The network prevailed because Nakamura could not show the broadcast contained a false statement of fact made with actual malice.
A newspaper published an editorial accusing Nathaniel Newman, the city police chief, of ignoring corruption within his department. Newman sued for defamation. Because the statements concerned his official conduct, he was required to prove the newspaper acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
The government sought an injunction to stop Nile Shipping from publishing documents detailing agency contracting practices. The company argued the materials were newsworthy. The court refused the injunction because the government failed to meet the heavy burden required to justify prior restraint on publication.
The United States brought suit against the New York Times Company and the Washington Post Company seeking to enjoin publication of material from a classified government study on the history of United States decision-making regarding Vietnam policy. The newspapers had come into possession of the classified documents and had already begun publishing excerpts from the study in their respective newspapers before the government filed for injunctive relief. The District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in the New York Times case that the government had not satisfied the requirements for imposing a prior restraint. In the parallel Washington Post litigation, the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit both determined that the government had not met its burden. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the matters on an expedited schedule. Stays had been entered by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 23, 1971, and by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 24, 1971.
View casePublic officials and public figures must prove actual malice when suing for defamation over statements concerning their official conduct or involvement in public controversies. Private plaintiffs generally need show only negligence.
Yes. Public figures cannot recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress or false-light claims arising from expressive publications without showing actual malice.
A private plaintiff may recover presumed or punitive damages without actual malice only when the defamatory speech does not involve a matter of public concern.
Deliberate alteration of a quotation constitutes actual malice only if the change results in a material alteration of the meaning conveyed by the original statement.
…the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government." De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 365. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Case information - Court: Supreme Court of the United States - Docket / No.: 39 (and 40, Abernathy et al. v. Sullivan ) - Argued: January 7, 1964 - Judges: Opinion…