In the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan, what must a public official prove to win a defamation case?

In the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan, a public official must prove actual malice in order to win a defamation case against the media. This requirement was established by the U.S. Supreme Court to provide robust protection for freedom of speech, particularly in matters of public concern. Actual malice means that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This standard significantly raises the bar for public figures seeking to establish defamation because it acknowledges the importance of open debate and the dissemination of information about public officials.

The ruling emphasizes the role of the press in informing the public and the necessity of allowing criticism of government officials without the immediate threat of defamation lawsuits hindering freedom of expression. In contrast, private individuals require a lower standard to prove defamation, generally focusing on whether the statement is false and damaging to their reputation. This distinction reinforces the idea that public officials, by virtue of their position, must endure a greater level of scrutiny and criticism.