What do you think?
Rate this book
New York Times v. Sullivan: Civil Rights, Libel Law, and the Free Press
Illuminating a classic case from the turbulent civil rights era of the 1960s, two of America's foremost legal historians—Kermit Hall and Melvin Urofsky—provide a compact and highly readable updating of one of the most memorable decisions in the Supreme Court's canon.
When the New York Times published an advertisement that accused Alabama officials of willfully abusing civil rights activists, Montgomery police commissioner Lester Sullivan filed suit for defamation. Alabama courts, citing factual errors in the ad, ordered the Times to pay half a million dollars in damages. The Times appealed to the Supreme Court, which had previously deferred to the states on libel issues. The justices, recognizing that Alabama's application of libel law threatened both the nation's free press and equal rights for African Americans, unanimously sided with the Times .
As memorably recounted twenty years ago in Anthony Lewis's Make No Law , the 1964 decision profoundly altered defamation law, which the Court declared must not hinder debate on public issues even if it includes "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." The decision also introduced a new First Amendment a public official cannot recover damages for libel unless he proves that the statement was made with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.
Hall and Urofsky, however, place a new emphasis on this iconic case. Whereas Lewis's book championed freedom of the press, the authors here provide a stronger focus on civil rights and southern legal culture. They convey to readers the urgency of the civil rights movement and the vitriolic anger it inspired in the Deep South. Their insights place this landmark case within a new and enlightening frame.
When the New York Times published an advertisement that accused Alabama officials of willfully abusing civil rights activists, Montgomery police commissioner Lester Sullivan filed suit for defamation. Alabama courts, citing factual errors in the ad, ordered the Times to pay half a million dollars in damages. The Times appealed to the Supreme Court, which had previously deferred to the states on libel issues. The justices, recognizing that Alabama's application of libel law threatened both the nation's free press and equal rights for African Americans, unanimously sided with the Times .
As memorably recounted twenty years ago in Anthony Lewis's Make No Law , the 1964 decision profoundly altered defamation law, which the Court declared must not hinder debate on public issues even if it includes "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." The decision also introduced a new First Amendment a public official cannot recover damages for libel unless he proves that the statement was made with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.
Hall and Urofsky, however, place a new emphasis on this iconic case. Whereas Lewis's book championed freedom of the press, the authors here provide a stronger focus on civil rights and southern legal culture. They convey to readers the urgency of the civil rights movement and the vitriolic anger it inspired in the Deep South. Their insights place this landmark case within a new and enlightening frame.
232 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2011
2 people are currently reading
56 people want to read
About the author
Kermit L. Hall
61 booksKermit Lance Hall was a noted legal historian who served as president of Utah State University from 2000 to 2005, and president of the at University at Albany from 2005 until his sudden death from a heart attack in 2006.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 13, 2024
Constitution law can be fun
January 29, 2018
I didn't really know anything about this case, nor how the libel laws had evolved through other cases. Quite interesting. I'm going to try some of the other titles in this series.
The book was timely with our president frequently talking about changing the libel laws. Also, it related to the movie The Post that just came out.
I have always found it fascinating how our vision of the press has changed. It certainly didn't start out as unbiased and still isn't for the most part. However, without the fearless journalists who research and track down information we would have no idea what really goes on both locally and nationally. Very important for an informed electorate.
The book was timely with our president frequently talking about changing the libel laws. Also, it related to the movie The Post that just came out.
I have always found it fascinating how our vision of the press has changed. It certainly didn't start out as unbiased and still isn't for the most part. However, without the fearless journalists who research and track down information we would have no idea what really goes on both locally and nationally. Very important for an informed electorate.
Read
May 1, 2025It felt a bit repetitive at times but was informational.
May 17, 2012
New York Times v. Sullivan is one of the the great cases that helped define and expand rights protected by the constitution in the United States. Another is Gideon v. Wainwright. The first involved freedom of the press and the right to criticism government officials without fear; the second the right of those accused of felonies to have counsel if they can't afford to pay a lawyer. What unites these cases is that each of them was the subject of a book by Anthony Lewis, one of our foremost reporters on the law and courts.
This book by Hall and Urofsky approaches the New York Times case from a different point of view than did Anthony Lewis. Lewis, understandably enough, saw if from the perspective of the Times--he worked for them than as he does now. Hall and Urofsky analyze the case as part of the civil rights struggle in the South during the 1950s and 1960s and they do an excellent job.
It was an insane time in a very strange place. The judge in the initial libel trail against the Times, one the resulted in a huge fine against the newspaper and subjected anyone who worked for them to arrest if they were in Alabama declared from the bench that the case would be tried "under the laws of the State of Alabama and not under the Fourteenth Amendment." He went on to praise "white man's justice, a justice born long ago in England and brought to this country the the Anglo-Saxon race." In addition to the Times, four black civil rights leaders were made part of the suit. They and their counsel were less surprised than the New York lawyers at the astounding pronouncements from the bench in Alabama.
"New York Times v. Sullivan: Civil Rights, Libel Law, and the Free Press" is legal history and analysis and social history and does a good job in both. It is well written and lavishly referenced and researched.
This book by Hall and Urofsky approaches the New York Times case from a different point of view than did Anthony Lewis. Lewis, understandably enough, saw if from the perspective of the Times--he worked for them than as he does now. Hall and Urofsky analyze the case as part of the civil rights struggle in the South during the 1950s and 1960s and they do an excellent job.
It was an insane time in a very strange place. The judge in the initial libel trail against the Times, one the resulted in a huge fine against the newspaper and subjected anyone who worked for them to arrest if they were in Alabama declared from the bench that the case would be tried "under the laws of the State of Alabama and not under the Fourteenth Amendment." He went on to praise "white man's justice, a justice born long ago in England and brought to this country the the Anglo-Saxon race." In addition to the Times, four black civil rights leaders were made part of the suit. They and their counsel were less surprised than the New York lawyers at the astounding pronouncements from the bench in Alabama.
"New York Times v. Sullivan: Civil Rights, Libel Law, and the Free Press" is legal history and analysis and social history and does a good job in both. It is well written and lavishly referenced and researched.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews