Also known as: Times v. Sullivan · New York Times v. Sullivan · Sullivan rule · actual malice standard · Sullivan doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine requiring a public official or public figure to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a defamatory statement about official conduct was published with actual malice. Actual malice means the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. The doctrine shields robust public debate by protecting even erroneous criticism unless that high fault threshold is met.
Tristan Thompson, a well-known athlete, sued Torchlight Media after it published an article accusing him of game-fixing. Thompson offered evidence that the reporter relied solely on an unverified social-media post and ignored readily available game logs showing the accusation was baseless. A jury could find that the publisher entertained serious doubts yet published anyway, satisfying the actual-malice requirement.
Tanner Thompson, owner of a small construction firm, sued Dun & Bradstreet after a confidential credit report falsely stated his company had filed for bankruptcy. The report was distributed only to five subscribers and concerned purely private commercial matters. Because the speech was not on a matter of public concern, the actual-malice standard did not apply and Thompson could recover on a lesser showing of fault.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Theresa Tucker, a prominent socialite, sued Time, Inc. after a magazine article reported that her divorce was granted on grounds of adultery. The article was based on courtroom testimony and press coverage of the highly publicized trial. Tucker could not recover without proving the magazine knew the report was false or acted with reckless disregard for its accuracy.
Tracy Torres, a retired military officer and public figure, sued a television network for a documentary alleging war-crimes cover-ups. Torres sought internal editorial memos and reporter notes to show the network doubted its own sources. The actual-malice inquiry permits discovery of the defendant's state of mind and editorial decisions at the time of publication.
Tiana Tan, a local sheriff running for reelection, sued a newspaper that reported she had accepted bribes from a contractor. The story rested on a single anonymous informant the reporter had never met and whose credibility was never checked against public records. A jury could conclude the publisher acted with reckless disregard by publishing without any corroboration.
Tori Taylor, a sitting mayor, sued a television station that broadcast an investigative report accusing her of steering contracts to a campaign donor. The station possessed documents contradicting the charge yet deliberately avoided interviewing the donor or reviewing the documents. The purposeful avoidance supplied evidence that the station entertained serious doubts about the story's truth.
A public official must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published the statement with actual malice. Actual malice requires showing the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. Mere negligence or failure to investigate is constitutionally insufficient.
No. The actual-malice standard applies only when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure and the statement concerns official conduct or a matter of public concern. Private plaintiffs may recover on a showing of negligence in many jurisdictions.
Reckless disregard can be shown by evidence that the publisher entertained serious doubts about the statement's accuracy or purposefully avoided learning the truth. Reliance on an unverified anonymous tip without consulting readily available contradictory records may support such a finding.
No. When the speech concerns a matter of public concern, punitive damages require proof of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. The First Amendment precludes punitive awards based on lesser fault.
…flexible than for breach of contract. ("The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires." Id. ) [^maj-6]: New York Times v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), holds that a state may not apply a state rule of law to impose impermissible restrictions on the federal constitutional freedoms of…