Text of the U.S. Supreme Court Opinions – New York Times vs. Sullivan

.

Our Aug 11 meeting will address the public-policy issue of WHAT AN ATROCITY the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in “New York Times vs. Sullivan” was because it has produced IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE virtually nothing but lies to the public while pols do NOT dare lie to campaign contributors.

Click here for three reference materials –


*****
The Text of the U.S. Supreme Court Opinions – New York Times vs. Sullivan


*****
New York Times vs. Sullivan – Wikipedia

Ordinarily, we view Wikipedia articles as only as good as their footnotes.

HOWEVER, this article is reasonably-well written and provides necessary context.


*****
Text of The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

These rules govern procedure in civil cases in U.S. District Courts.

Our Aug 11 meeting will address (1) the Supreme Court’s “NY Times vs. Sullivan” requirement FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS to prove either “ACTUAL MALICE” or "RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH," (2) how satisfying this additional Olympic “High Hurdle” by public officials should be a “slam dunk” in the case of Michael Lewis and “The Premonition” AS A THEORETICAL MATTER, and (3) how satisfying this Olympic “High Hurdle” in the case of Michael Lewis and “The Premonition” AS A PRACTICAL MATTER is probably impossible because any jury would be likely to have at least one “Trump Hater” who has lied her/his way onto the jury.

The reason for The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a Reference Material???

Evidence of “actual malice” on the parts of Michael Lewis, his editor and his publisher should be readily obtainable as all of their files have to be turned over to the plaintiff(s) under the “discovery rules” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and as their depositions are then taken “under penalties of perjury.”



**********************************************************
Our Status as a NON-PARTISAN Public-Policy Study/Action Organization

It is impossible to analyze the “public policy” of the Supreme Court's decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254 (1964)) and its progeny limiting defamation of public officials or candidates for public office to cases involving ACTUAL MALICE or RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH (the progeny extended this limitation to defamation of “public figures”) without a real-life example involving a public official or candidate for public office. Since U.S. democracy essentially runs on a two-party system, any example of a public official or candidate for public office will, virtually of necessity, involve either a Republican or a Democrat.

[BTW, John Karls, who has been the facilitator of our organization for its 16 years of existence, does NOT have a vote at our monthly meetings for the focus book for the following month.]
.
Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2061
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Text of the U.S. Supreme Court Opinions – New York Times vs. Sullivan

Post by johnkarls »

.
Here are the official texts of the Supreme Court opinions courtesy of the Library of Congress -


The Supreme Court issued three opinions, the majority opinion supported by 6 justices – and 2 concurring opinions, each of which was supported by the 9th justice.

The majority opinion written by William Brennan Jr, was joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Tom Clark, John Harlan III, Potter Stewart and Byron White.

It begins at 376 U.S. 256 (page 3 of the 54-page Adobe.pdf file).

There were two concurring opinions.

The first, written by Hugo Black in which William Douglas joined, begins at 376 U.S. 293 (page 42 of the 54-page Adobe.pdf file).

The second, written Arthur Goldberg in which William Douglas also joined, begins at 376 U.S. 297 (page 46 of the 54-page Adobe.pdf file).

Post Reply

Return to “Reference Materials – The Non-Partisan Public-Policy Issues of Whether, For Example, Michael Lewis’ “The Premonition: A Pandemic Story” Is A Classic Political “Hit Piece” and Whether, As Such, It Should Be (vs. Is) Protected by Freedom Of Speech – Aug 11”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest