{"id":40059,"date":"2025-08-04T12:45:00","date_gmt":"2025-08-04T12:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=40059"},"modified":"2025-08-21T04:04:00","modified_gmt":"2025-08-21T04:04:00","slug":"the-case-that-saved-the-press-and-why-trump-wants-it-gone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/the-case-that-saved-the-press-and-why-trump-wants-it-gone\/","title":{"rendered":"The case that saved the press \u2013 and why Trump wants it gone"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin<\/a>, Boise State University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

President Donald Trump is again attacking the American press \u2013 this time not with fiery rally speeches or by calling the media \u201cthe enemy of the people<\/a>,\u201d but through the courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the heat of the November 2024 election, and continuing into July, Trump has filed defamation lawsuits against \u201c60 Minutes\u201d broadcaster CBS News<\/a> and The Wall Street Journal<\/a>. He has also sued the Des Moines Register<\/a> for publishing a poll just before the 2024 election that Trump alleges exaggerated support for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and thus constituted election interference and fraud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are in addition to other lawsuits<\/a> Trump filed against the news media during his first term and during his years out of office between 2021 and 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the heart of Trump\u2019s complaints is a familiar refrain: The media is not only biased, but dishonest, corrupt and dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The president isn\u2019t just upset about reporting on him that he thinks is unfair. He wants to redefine<\/a> what counts as libel and make it easier for public officials to sue for damages. A libel suit is a civil tort claim seeking damages when a person believes something false has been printed or broadcast about them and so harmed their reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Redefining libel in this way would require overturning the Supreme Court\u2019s 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan<\/a>, one of the most important First Amendment legal rulings in American constitutional history<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump made overturning Sullivan a talking point<\/a> during his first campaign for president; his lawsuits now put that threat into action. And they raise the question: What happened in Sullivan, and why does it still matter? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Sullivan was about<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As chair<\/a> of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the<\/a> media and the presidency<\/a>, and another about media ethics<\/a>. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1960, The New York Times published a full-page advertisement titled \u201cHeed Their Rising Voices\u201d<\/a>. The ad, which included an appeal for readers to send money in support of Martin Luther King Jr. and the movement against Jim Crow<\/a>, described brutal and unjust treatment of Black students and protesters in Montgomery, Alabama. It also emphasized episodes of police violence against peaceful demonstrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ad was not entirely accurate<\/a> in its description of the behavior of either protesters or the police.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It claimed, for instance, that activists had sung \u201cMy Country \u2019Tis of Thee\u201d on the steps of the state capitol during a rally, when they actually had sung the national anthem. It said that \u201ctruckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas\u201d had \u201cringed\u201d a college campus, when the police had only been deployed nearby. And it asserted that King had been arrested seven times in Alabama, when the real number was four.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though the ad did not identify any individual public officials by name, it disparaged the behavior of Montgomery police.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s where L.B. Sullivan<\/a> came in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Montgomery\u2019s police commissioner, he oversaw the police department. Sullivan claimed that because the ad maligned the conduct of law enforcement, it had implicitly defamed him. In 1960 in Alabama, a primary defense<\/a> against libel was truth. But since there were mistakes in the ad, a truth defense could not be raised. Sullivan sued for damages, and an Alabama jury awarded him US$500,000, equivalent to $5,450,000 in 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The message to the press was clear: criticize Southern officials and risk being sued out of existence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, the Sullivan lawsuit was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader strategy<\/a>. In addition to Sullivan, four other Montgomery officials filed suits against the Times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Birmingham, public officials filed seven libel lawsuits over Times reporter Harrison Salisbury\u2019s trenchant reporting about racism in that city. The lawsuits helped push the Times to the edge of bankruptcy. Salisbury was even indicted for seditious libel<\/a> and faced up to 21 years in prison.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alabama officials also sued<\/a> CBS, The Associated Press, the Saturday Evening Post and Ladies\u2019 Home Journal \u2013 all for reporting on civil rights and the South\u2019s brutal response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Four
Montgomery, Ala., Police Commissioner L.B. Sullivan, second left, and his attorneys celebrate his $500,000 libel suit victory in a county court on Nov. 3, 1960. Bettman\/Getty Images<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The jury\u2019s verdict in favor of Sullivan was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court<\/a> in 1964.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Writing for the court, Justice William Brennan held that public officials cannot prevail in defamation lawsuits merely by showing that statements are false. Instead, they must prove such statements are made with \u201cactual malice\u201d<\/a>. Actual malice means a reporter or press outlet knew their story was false or else acted with reckless disregard for the truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision set a high bar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the ruling, the First Amendment\u2019s protections for speech and the press didn\u2019t offer much help to the press in libel cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After it, public officials who wanted to sue the press would have to prove \u201cactual malice\u201d \u2013 real, purposeful untruths that caused harm. Honest mistakes weren\u2019t enough to prevail in such lawsuits. The court held that errors are inevitable in public debate and that protecting those mistakes is essential to keeping debate open and free.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nonviolent protest and the press<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In essence, the court ruling blocked government officials from suing for libel with ulterior motives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

King and other civil rights leaders relied on a strategy of nonviolent protest<\/a> to expose injustice through public, visible actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When protesters were arrested, beaten or hosed in the streets, their goal was not chaos \u2013 it was clarity. They wanted the nation to see what Southern oppression looked like. For that, they needed press coverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Sullivan\u2019s lawsuit had succeeded, it could have bullied the press away<\/a> from covering civil rights altogether. The Supreme Court recognized this danger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Public officials treated differently<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Another key element of the court\u2019s reasoning was its distinction between public officials and private citizens<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Elected leaders, the court said, can use mass media to defend themselves in ways ordinary people cannot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe public official certainly has equal if not greater access than most private citizens to media of communication<\/a>,\u201d Justice Brennan wrote in the Sullivan ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump is a perfect example of this dynamic<\/a>. He masterfully uses social media, rallies, televised interviews and impromptu remarks to push back. He doesn\u2019t need the courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Giving public officials the power to sue over news stories they dislike could well create a chilling effect<\/a> on the media that undermines government accountability and distorts public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise,\u201d Brennan wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Sullivan still matters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Sullivan ruling is more than a legal doctrine<\/a>. It is a shared agreement about the kind of democracy Americans aspire to. It affirms a press duty to hold power to account, and a public right to hear facts and information that those in power want to suppress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling protects the right to criticize those in power and affirms that the press is not a nuisance, but an essential part of a functioning democracy. It ensures that political leaders cannot insulate themselves from scrutiny by silencing their critics through intimidation or litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s lawsuits seek to undo these press protections. He presents himself as the victim of a dishonest press and hopes to use the legal system to punish those he perceives to be his detractors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision in the Sullivan case reminds Americans that democracy doesn\u2019t depend on leaders who feel comfortable. It depends on a public that is free to speak<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin<\/a>, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Boise State University President Donald Trump is again attacking the American press \u2013 this time not with fiery rally speeches or by calling the media \u201cthe enemy of the people,\u201d but through the courts. Since the heat of the November 2024 election, and continuing into July, Trump has filed defamation lawsuits […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":40061,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[15534,46,295,10,296,36,4,38],"tags":[16720,16722,3846,5715,9613,479,2254,16719,503,16721,885,891,886,860,2367,16723,7281,1666],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40059"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40059"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40059\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40215,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40059\/revisions\/40215"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40061"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40059"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40059"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}