The New York Times Vs sullivan case of 1964 changed the way courts would rule on libel. It also changed the requirements of what is considered libel. It also served to show what …show more content…
Before the case of New York Times Vs Sullivan, the states had the right to choose what they considered was libel. “Alabama law stated that a person must be cited by name in a libel case, a public official could be libeled by words directed at the agency that he or she headed” ()which was used by the Montgomery Circuit court to rule in favor of Sullivan. Alabama law believed that when it came to public officials, that false information and misinformation would affect them badly regardless of truth. Alabama law also stated that general damages could be awarded without proof of damages done. Six locals citizen of Montgomery “ testified that they believed the statements in paragraphs three and six referred to Sullivan personally”(), this was enough for L.B Sullivan to win his case. The same was for when the New York Times appealed their case to the Alabama Supreme court. The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled in favor of Sullivan, forcing the New York Times to appeal to the supreme