New York Times - Sullivan Davası: Revizyonlar arasındaki fark

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 [[Racial segregation|segregation]].

 

 

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.<ref name=nytvss/> The ''Times'' did not publish a retraction in response to the demand. Instead it wrote a letter{{Citation needed|date=September 2011}} 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".<ref name=nytvss/> Sullivan did not respond but instead filed a libel suit a few days later. He also sued four black ministers mentioned in the ad, specifically [[Ralph Abernathy]], [[S.S. Seay|S.S. Seay, Sr.]], [[Fred Shuttlesworth]], and [[Joseph Lowery]]. Sullivan won $500,000 in an Alabama court judgment.<ref name="oyez.org">[http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39 New York Times v. Sullivan at Oyez.]</ref>