In New York Times v. Sullivan, what was the outcome regarding liability?

• A. The Times was not liable because statements were not proven to be 'of and concerning' Sullivan.
• B. The Times was liable for negligence.
• C. The clergymen were liable.
• D. The case established strict liability.

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is that defamation liability against the press when the plaintiff is a public official hinges on proving actual malice. Actual malice means the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that because Sullivan was a public official, the Times could not be held liable unless Sullivan showed actual malice. Although the advertisement contained some inaccuracies, Sullivan did not prove that the Times (or the ad’s authors) acted with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Without that finding of actual malice, there is no liability, so the Times prevailed.

The notion of whether the statements were “of and concerning” Sullivan is part of identifying the subject of a defaming statement, but the controlling standard in this case was actual malice. The other options—negligence, strict liability, or liability of the clergymen—do not fit the Supreme Court’s holding.