|
United States Supreme Court
In any state governed by law, there is an understandable tendency on the part of government officials
to use that law to protect themselves and their actions from public criticism. This is particularly true
in a system such as that of the United States, in which public officials must submit to periodic tests
of public approval to retain their positions. Consequently, it sometimes appears as if elected officials
are the greatest enemies of the freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Official attempts to limit that freedom form a continuous thread through the constitutional history of
the nation.
The origin of this thread lies in the Sedition Act of 1798, in which a relatively conservative government
attempted to prevent the radical principles of the French Revolution from being introduced into the young
nation by prosecuting for sedition anyone who published their support of those ideas. This dangerous expedient
was opposed by Thomas Jefferson, and the Sedition Act was repealed when he and his supporters gained power.
The New York Times Company v. Sullivan is only one in a long series of landmarks in the history
of this continuing conflict.
Sullivan was one of three city commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama. He took exception to a paid advertisement
soliciting contributions for civil-rights groups, signed by a large number of prominent men and women,
and published in The New York Times. The advertisement alleged that public officials had initiated
a campaign of terror against civil-rights workers. Some of the details recounted in the advertisement
were in error, and Sullivan sued the New York Times Company for published libelous falsehoods. Although
the Alabama courts found in favor of Sullivan, their decision was overturned by the United States Supreme
Court. The justices concluded that the freedom to criticize public officials and their actions is so important
to the functioning of a democratic society that it can be limited only for the most serious of reasons—that
the critic knowingly and maliciously published lies. Intent being notoriously difficult to prove, the
public’s right to criticize government policies and officials was protected against yet another attempt
to limit it.
As you read through this decision, consider how the Supreme Court answered several key questions. What
fault did the court find with the Alabama judge’s handling of the trial? Must criticism be true to be
protected by the First Amendment? Is public criticism protected by the First Amendment even if it causes
harm or loss to the person or people criticized? What distinctions did the Supreme Court make between
policies and the officials responsible for formulating them? Would you agree with the justices’ reasoning
in each case? Can you think of a local case affected by this ruling?
|
