Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan

Actual Malice: Civil rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan is a deeply researched legal drama that documents the case of New York Times v. Sullivan and the ruling that provided critical protections for free speech and freedom of the press. 

 The dramatic New York Times v. Sullivan case grew out of segregationists’ attempts to quash reporting on the civil rights movement. In its landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that a public official must prove “actual malice” or reckless disregard of the truth to win a libel lawsuit. In Actual Malice, NEH Public Scholar Samantha Barbas draws on myriad sources—including the papers of the New York Times company and civil rights leaders— and contextualizes the case within the 1960s.  

The New Yorker commends Barbas’ use of archival sources to frame the case anew in Actual Malice, and the New York Times includes Actual Malice in an article about newly published books relating to freedom of press.