New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan

The term "actual malice" was formed from this case. This meant that knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth was used in a court of law or on the news. This is what the media and pop culture world strives to gain popularity over. They always will make small information seem a lot more important and/or will fabricate the story to make it seem more interesting. We see this a lot in People magazine and others where the cover screams "Kim and Kanye: Divorce on the Line?" This is never the truth and we learn that when all they have to quote in the article is a "reliable source." Furthermore, you see nothing on the actual news talking about their divorce. This would be actual malice and is false information put together for the consumer.

This whole case started when The New York Times published an ad for contributing donations to defend Martin Luther King Jr, on perjury charges. The advertisement had several facts in it that weren't true and it really disappointed the city Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan. This was one case that proves that a newspaper can be held liable for anything it prints that isn't true. It must tell the absolute truth and nothing but the truth.

Overall, "actual malice" is something that is extremely important in this day and age as we get a lot of "fake news" published in our local newspapers, magazines, social media sites, etc. All of this is just reckless behavior from disregarding the truth and writing a false statement.

From article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan