the.day.it.all.changed.

1. What is the significance of Times v. Sullivan:

In regards to American history, Times v. Sullivan was a turning point in First Amendment and free speech law. With the reversal, freedom of speech and freedom of the press became more protected. Due process also gained significantly more protecting. The case’s decision made it harder for defendants to be discriminated against or given an unfair trail because of a biased jury or corrupt local court system. How it made it harder for an unfair trial has to do with how the verdict affected lawyers.
For lawyers, the Times v. Sullivan switched the burden of proof in libel cases. It also introduced the concept of “fault.” The plaintiff had to now show that the defendant had published a false statement “knowingly or recklessly” or “with a high degree of fault” (Lewis, 157). The plaintiff now had to first show something in the publication was false and that the defendant published the falsehood knowingly with the intention of having it damage the plaintiff. In this sense, the court was giving the defendants some leeway in that false statements that were thought to be true when published (or even insignificant false statements) could not be held against them. There was some breathing room when it came to false statements.
This breathing room was a relief to journalists. The courts thought that self-censorship might occur if people (or the press) thought they could be prosecuted for getting a minor detail or something like that wrong. It allowed for “honest mistakes” (Lewis, 157). Also, this allowance for honest mistakes encouraged the press to challenge “official truth” (Lewis, 158). Journalists now had the freedom and the desire to delve deep into controversial situations and events without fear of being sued for libel is they didn’t have every single one of their facts straight.
This court’s decision means a lot to me, personally. It made great strides for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I considered myself a journalist and respect and appreciate the freedom this reversal gave to me. I know that I am not going to be sued for insignificant mistakes and that I am free and protected to give my opinions on various issues. I do not have to self-censor my thoughts and writings because I am afraid of getting sued or shot or hanged or made to drink hemlock or something like that. Also, I know that what I read in the news has not been censored by the government, that I am not being fed what only one side to an issue. I am able to make informed decisions based on what it is reported on both sides of an issue and share my thoughts on them. Because of this decision, I can report the truth as well as share my opinions on it and not fear retribution.

2. What were the rules of libel law for working journalists before Times v. Sullivan?

The rules of libel before Times v. Sullivan revolved around the defendant or journalist having to prove that every instance of the story was true. And, in some instances, truth was not even a defense. This meant that journalists would have to be sure that ALL of their facts were accurate. Checking all of these facts of perfect accuracy was/is not feasible in any way for any publication. Before the reversal of Times v. Sullivan libel law was abused and used against journalists. It was used and twisted by officials, judges, etc. to put down journalists who were covering controversial issues (such as racism and discrimination) that Southern officials didn’t want getting out (Lewis, 153).

3. What is "actual malice," and how did it change the rules?

Actual malice was defined in Justice Brennan’s opinion as “knowing and reckless falsehood” (Lewis, 147). This changes the rules because the burden of proof of actual malice was now put on the plaintiff. They had to prove that the defendant knew the information was false and meant for its publication to cause harm. This meant considerable more research on the part of the plaintiff. This way there was room for error on the part of citizens who had the right to criticize the government. The press and the people were given some leeway in their criticism in that their facts did not have to be 100% accurate. Also, this gave people the fall back that there was room for error. That they could make an honest mistake with their facts or facts they thought to be true.

4. How could you cover Illinois statehouse politics if Times v. Sullivan hadn't been decided the way it was?

You couldn’t cover Illinois statehouse politics if Times v. Sullivan hadn’t been decided the way it was. We would not be allowed or willing to publish any views that were inconsistent with the ones the government supported. All of the reporting would be incredibly one sided. And, there would be no criticize of any kind in it. All of the information would also have to be very generic to avoid details that could be proven false or that could be insignificantly false, but used against us in some way. Basically, if the case had not been reversed, reporters would not be able to publish anything critical of the government or public affairs issues for fear of retribution.