New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Opinion of the Court

In answer, the Court held that the free-speech protections of the First Amendment covered the Times advertisement despite its factual inaccuracies. The Court reasoned that "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and... must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space that they need... to survive". It concluded that the importance of safeguarding the "breathing space" created by the First Amendment's protections required giving constitutional protection to "erroneous statements honestly made". The Court analogized Alabama's libel law to the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts passed in the 1790s during the presidency of John Adams. It reasoned that a broad interpretation of libel laws that protected government officials from criticism would produce situations similar to those under the Alien and Sedition Acts, which had been historically criticized.
detectable_format:number_bullet_lists[6]