Talk:New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Top‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil Rights Movement Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil Rights MovementWikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementTemplate:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementCivil Rights Movement articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for New York Times Co. v. Sullivan:

No to-do list assigned.

WikiProject Civil Rights Movement to do list:

Edit the tasks list

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : All redlinked articles listed at User:Mitchumch/Movement templates#Civil Rights Movement need to be created.
Durham movement (North Carolina)
Greensboro movement (North Carolina) (currently a redirect)
Henry Hezekiah Dee (currently a redirect)
Delano Herman Middleton (currently a redirect)
Charles Eddie Moore (currently a redirect)
Henry Ezekial Smith (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Rosa Parks, and upgrade to GA status
Black Arts Movement
Collaborate : Tagging all relevant articles with project template.
Expand : And the Walls Came Tumbling Down
Medgar Evers
The Children (Halberstam)
Cambridge movement (civil rights)
Browder v. Gayle
Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957
Photo : Milton Galamison • J. Charles Jones • Gloria Richardson • Richard Durham • Freedom Riders • Freedom Summer • March Against Fear • Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom • Youth March for Integrated Schools (1958) • Youth March for Integrated Schools (1959) • Birmingham riot of 1963 • 16th Street Baptist Church bombing (image of bombing) • Bloody Tuesday (1964) • Biloxi wade-ins (image of wade-ins) • Tallahassee bus boycott • Tent City (Tennessee) • Memphis sanitation strike (image of actual strike) • Americus movement • Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple bombing • Baton Rouge bus boycott • Orangeburg massacre • Mansfield school desegregation incident • Bloody Monday (Danville)

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Link To Existing[edit]

Suggest moving article/linking to SCOTUS/Journalism portals for review of class importance. also link interior sidebar to same portals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quietcat (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

all we want[edit]

all we want to know is did he have to give the money back...we're confused...we're writing a paper here...and we need info...HELP! thanks!

Did who get what money back? Postdlf 04:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof = success?[edit]

Because of the extremely high burden on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases rarely, if ever preval against public figures.

This doesn't make sense at all (not to mention the misspelling of "prevail". It is the plaintiff that would bring the libel charge, who then has to meet the high burden of proving the malice of the defendant. That would imply that it is hard for a plaintiff to win such a case. Presumably the plaintiff, i.e. bringer of action, i.e. the one alleging wrong, would be the public figure. I think it should say "if ever prevail for public figures". - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments on your sharp eye and shrewd observation. Good catch. ~ Penlite (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of the ad?[edit]

Is it possible to get a picture of the ad? It would really help the article. --Cdogsimmons 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tha original add is reproduced in Make No Law, and could be scanned in from a copy of that book. It would need a fair use ratrionale. DES ^(talk) 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Examination request[edit]

The image involved here is a reproduction of a full-page New York Times ad, originally published on 29 March 1960. The ad was the subject matter of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan a very important case in US Constitutional law, and so an image of the actual ad might well be considered "iconic" and "historically significant" It is surely not replaceable by anything else. Lewis, the author of Make no Law, the classic book-length study of the case, used the reproduction as the frontispiece for that book. Surely this is a transformative use, and equally surely there is no current commercial market for an image of a newspaper ad from 1960. Furthermore, since the ad was published in the US before 1964, and all of its authors were US nationals, it is now in the Public Domain in the US unless copyright on the ad (which would have belonged to the fund-raising committee that wrote the ad, not to the Times) was renewed. The committee was surely disbanded long before the renewal period in 1988-89, so the copyright is unlikly to have been renewed, and a search of the on line renewal records at the Library of congress reveals no such renewal -- but for such short works the records are not always complete, or may be filed under a misleading heading. Still perhaps this constitutes sufficient due diligence? I have a copy of the book which contains the reproduction of the ad, and a scanner. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this. Normally at Wikipedia we're very wary about making claims that copyright wasn't renewed based on just searching online alone. I think Project Gutenberg has some lawyers that further investigate copyright status if they think some very important work has fallen into the public domain but if it's just something like this they probably wouldn't bother. I would just tag it fair use, which it clearly is in an article about the court case. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

50th Anniversary puff piece largely by article's subject[edit]

The section ==50th Anniversary== seems to be largely unnecessary, gratuitous and inappropriate content -- echoing (in celebratory fashion), and directly quoting at length, a very lengthy paragraph (WP:COPYOTHERS issues?) of editorial opinion, published by none other than the victorious plaintiff in the case. Rather like quoting a victorious politician on his/her opinion of why their victory is of "historic" importance to the nation. Hardly objective, and rather cooly dismissive of the WP:NPOV rule.

Regardless of whether you agree with the expressed opinions, they are very clearly not sourced from a WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. Quite the opposite -- they're sourced from one of the contenders in the case.

Given that this is one of the most famous and influential U.S. Supreme Court precedents, there is, of course, an abundance of independent and reputable sources, including a flood of academic literature, on this subject. No need to use Wikipedia to simply disseminate the self-congratulatory public-relations statements of the plaintiff.

Perhaps this section should be deleted, in its entirety, or replaced with content from a WP:NEUTRALSOURCE?

~ Penlite (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are.

(Delete; maybe keep 2014 editorial as external link?)

Instead, the article would ideally expand on the "later developments" and applications of the ruling. groupuscule (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]