Freedom of the Press Law Celebrates 50th Anniversary

Freedom of the Press Law Celebrates 50th Anniversary

New York Times v. Sullivan is a case etched on the minds of media lawyers and journalists, quite apart from civil rights lawyers, throughout the United States and the world.

And the celebrated and seminal Supreme Court case which tilted the balance of power in the delicate ecosystem that exists between journalists and political figures, slightly against the latter.  The First Amendment’s rights were widened at a tme when there was considerable change occurring with the civil rights movement.

The case altered many things, including First Amendment rights.  The ABA Journal have featured an item on the 1964 case and its establishment of the “actual malice” test.

The Journal says that the court held that public officials attempting to sue publishers must show that the information disseminated was untrue, and that the publishers either knew the information was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.


The holding has become known for establishing the “actual malice” test integral to proving intent in defamation cases. According to legal scholars, the high court’s decision and dicta in Sullivan helped spawn generations of investigative journalists.


The ruling “changed American journalism. It set the stage for the boom in investigative reporting in the decades to follow and truly invigorated the watchdog role of the press,” says Kenneth A. Paulson, president and CEO of the First Amendment Center at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., and dean of the College of Mass Communication at Middle Tennessee State University.


Legal scholars say the cultural significance of Sullivan and its progeny has changed during the past 50 years. The actual-malice test continues to protect reporters and publishers faced with defamation cases. But the question is whether the journalist’s role as government watchdog is still valued and protected by U.S. laws and, particularly, by the judiciary.


Columbia University law professor David Pozen, who specializes in constitutional and national security issues, says that Sullivan and other cases from that era are “seen as valorizing an aggressive form of journalism and promoting the idea that courts are the institutional safeguards of that kind of journalism.”


But he says Sullivan has become more of an “interesting cultural artifact” than a court opinion reflecting how the judiciary views journalists.


“There is still a tendency among members of the media to view the courts in somewhat romantic terms as natural allies and guardians against overreaching by the political branches,” he says. “I’m not confident that remains a descriptively accurate view of the courts.”

See: The ABA Journal

Scroll to Top