The ruling in the landmark case of New York Times v.Sullivan was that a public official can win a defamation case
A)without proving the defendant acted with reckless disregard of the truth.
B)only by proving the defendant's actual malice.
C)without proving the defendant knew his or her statement was false.
D)only by proving the defendant has a history of reckless behavior.

Question

The ruling in the landmark case of New York Times v.Sullivan was that a public official can win a defamation case
A)without proving the defendant acted with reckless disregard of the truth.
B)only by proving the defendant's actual malice.
C)without proving the defendant knew his or her statement was false.
D)only by proving the defendant has a history of reckless behavior.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan was that a public official can win a defamation case only by proving the defendant's actual malice, meaning the defendant made the defamatory statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Option A and C are incorrect because proving reckless disregard or knowledge of falsehood is necessary in the case. Option D is incorrect because a history of reckless behavior is not a requirement for a public official to win a defamation case.

The Ruling in the Landmark Case of New York Times