Actual Malice

The 1960 case of Sullivan vs. The New York Times was a landmark for the people and especially the journalists of the United States.  Long story short: an Alabama government official thought he was being attacked by a group of African American fundamentalists who wrote about a protest gone violent in Montgomery. 

Sullivan, the Alabama official thought that the advertisement depicted inaccurate claims that insinuated Sullivan's involvement, however the ad never once mentioned Sullivan's name. 
The court chief justice ruled in favor of Sullivan and granted him $500,000.  The trial was later over-turned by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., his reasoning sparked the term "actual malice" that is now used so frequently in court rooms today. 

Brennan concluded that the First Amendment must protect the publication of all written statements, even if they are false. 
The only exception to this rule is unless these statements were made with actual malice, this means that the offending party has made these statements with full knowledge of their falsity or made in reckless disregard of their truth.  Justice William Brennan Jr. "maintained that erroneous statements are inevitable in free debate and must be protected if freedom of expression is to have the 'breathing space' it needs to survive.

The outcome of this event was extremely significant and opened up the air to whole new conversations within the media, and was beneficial in many ways the the journalistic community.


Sullivan vs. NYT Link
Sullivan vs. NYT Link 2