|
(詳細は376 U.S. 254 (1964),〔''New York Times v. Sullivan'', (United States Supreme Court, March 9, 1964 (376 U.S. 254). )〕 was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel;〔Buescher, John. "(The 4th Estate as the 4th Branch )." (Teachinghistory.org ), accessed 2 September 2011.〕 and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such cases—when they involve public figures—rarely prevail. Before this decision, there were nearly US $300 million in libel actions outstanding against news organizations from the Southern states, and it had caused many publications to exercise great caution when reporting on civil rights, for fear that they might be held accountable for libel. After ''The New York Times'' prevailed in this case, news organizations were free to report the widespread disorder and civil rights infringements. The ''Times'' maintained that the case against it was brought to intimidate news organizations and prevent them from reporting illegal actions of public employees in the South as they attempted to continue to support segregation. ==Background of the case== On March 29, 1960, ''The New York Times'' carried a full-page advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices",〔(Heed Their Rising Voices Advertisement, courtesy of the National Archives )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/documented-rights/exhibit/section4/detail/heed-rising-voices.html )〕 which solicited funds to defend Martin Luther King, Jr. against an Alabama perjury indictment. The advertisement described actions against civil rights protesters, some of them inaccurately, some of which involved the police force of Montgomery, Alabama. Discrepancies were generally minor. Referring to the Alabama State Police, the advertisement stated: "They have arrested () seven times..." However, at that point he had been arrested four times.〔 Although African-American students staged a demonstration on the State Capitol steps, they sang the National Anthem and not ''My Country, 'Tis of Thee''.〔 Although the Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, was not named in the advertisement, the inaccurate criticism of actions by the police was considered defamatory to Sullivan as well, due to his duty to supervise the police department.〔 Alabama law denied a public officer recovery of punitive damages in a libel action concerning their official conduct unless they first made a written demand for a public retraction and the defendant failed or refused to comply, so Sullivan sent such a request.〔 The ''Times'' did not publish a retraction in response to the demand. Instead it wrote a letter stating, among other things, that "we ... are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way reflect on you," and "you might, if you desire, let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you".〔 Sullivan did not respond but instead filed a libel suit a few days later. He also sued four African American ministers mentioned in the ad, specifically Ralph Abernathy, S.S. Seay, Sr., Fred Shuttlesworth, and Joseph Lowery. Sullivan won $500,000 in an Alabama court judgment.〔(New York Times v. Sullivan at Oyez. )〕 The ''Times'' did subsequently publish a retraction of the advertisement upon the demand of Governor John Patterson of Alabama, who alleged the publication charged him with "grave misconduct and ... improper actions and omissions as Governor of Alabama and ''ex officio'' chairman of the State Board of Education of Alabama."〔 When asked to explain why there had been a retraction for the Governor but not for Sullivan, the Secretary of the ''Times'' testified: "We did that because we didn't want anything that was published by the ''Times'' to be a reflection on the State of Alabama and the Governor was, as far as we could see, the embodiment of the State of Alabama and the proper representative of the state and, furthermore, we had by that time learned more of the actual facts which the ad purported to recite and, finally, the ad did refer to the action of the state authorities and the Board of Education presumably of which the Governor is the ''ex officio'' chairman....". However, the Secretary also testified he did not think that "any of the language in there referred to Mr. Sullivan."〔 Louis M. Loeb, a partner at the firm of Lord Day & Lord served as chief counsel to the Times from 1948 to 1967,〔"Who's Who in America 1978-1979〕 successfully argued this case before the United States Supreme Court. The court's ruling held that news publications could not be sued for libel by public figures unless the plaintiffs were able to establish actual malice in the false reporting of a news story. The case, which had been brought against the Times by Montgomery, Alabama public safety commissioner L.B. Sullivan, allowed newspapers to report on the widespread chaos and police abuse accompanying the Civil Rights Movement. Loeb later called the libel cases he argued for The New York Times "the heaviest responsibility I’ve ever had since I began practicing law." () 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「New York Times Co. v. Sullivan」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|