Also known as: NY Times rule · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · actual malice · Sullivan standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see 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.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
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.
Public 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.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan <!-- acedexams opinion md v1 -- Case information - Court: Supreme Court of the United States - Docket No.: No. 39 - Argued: January 6, 1964 - Decided: March 9,…