In New York Times versus Sullivan the Supreme Court ruled that statements about public figures are examples of libel only when they are made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth

In the year 1964, the Supreme Court established guidelines for identifying whether some public officials could be suited for libel and win. In order to achieve the goal, the individuals must prove the wrong and malicious statements which should be made with "actual malice" and faking it.

Answer Link

holesstanham holesstanham · Answer 2 · 2020-04-13T03:53:55+02:00

Answer:

It allows people the freedom to criticize public officials.

Explanation:

This question is incomplete. The complete question is the following:

In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that statements about public figures are examples of libel only when they are made with malice and and reckless disregard for the truth. How does this ruling support a healthy democracy?

This ruling was an extremely important one for our country, as it contributed to the strengthening of our democracy. This ruling stated that, while malice and reckless disregard for the truth cannot be tolerated, simple criticism of public officials can be part of our democracy. This supports freedom of speech, as well as freedom of the press, and contributes to holding our leaders accountable.