a.    Yes.  Brennan, who wrote the majority opinion, reversed the
damage award and established that state defamation rules are limited
by First Am. principles.  Brennan, in reversing the damages, relied
heavily on the “Citizen-Critic” model:  debate on public issues must
be “uninhibited, robust, and wide open,” and may often include
“vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on
government and public officials.”  To require critics of official
conduct to guarantee the truth of all their factual assertions would
lead to self-censorship, rather than free debate.
b.    The Court found that Alabama’s libel rules were similar to
that of the original federal Sedition Act of 1798.  The Sedition Act
made it a crime publish any “false scandalous and malicious writings”
against the federal government with intent to bring it into “contempt
or disrepute.”  Although the Act expired before the Supreme Court
determined its constitutionality, the view that the Act violated the
First Am. had “carried the day in the court of history.”  So, Brennan
reasoned, in this case criticism of government public officials could
not be curtailed, without violating the First Am.
1.    Dave asks:  What is the relationship between seditious libel
and P in this case bringing suit against D?  Just as the
government—an official entity—cannot bring a seditious libel action
against people for falsely accusing government action, a government
official (such as Commissioner Sullivan) cannot bring suit against
people.  Why?  Because of the strong interest in protecting private
criticism of government action.  Dave says this is the “key” to this
case.
c.    The Court was not content just to strike down the libel
judgment as a disguised ban on criticizing the government.  Instead,
it articulated a formal rule, so that future speakers would not have
to worry about liability for libel in similar circumstances:  The
First Am. prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a
defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he
proves that the statement was made with “actual malice”—that is,
“with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not.”
1.    Dave asks:  Why does a democracy depend on false criticism of
the government (not just true criticism)?  For primarily two reasons.
As Brennan explains in his opinion, would-be critics of government
might still be deterred to speak out because of doubts concerning
their ability to prove defamatory statements are true.  Secondly,
“erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and [it] must be
protected if the freedoms of expression are to have ‘breathing space’
that they ‘need to survive’.”  This is a very important point.
2.    The burden is on P to show that D made the statement with
actual malice.  This is a very heavy burden to bear.
a    Yes.  Brennan, who wrote the majority opinion, reversed the
damage award and established that state defamation rules are limited
by First Am. principles.  Brennan, in reversing the damages, relied
heavily on the “Citizen-Critic” model:  debate on public issues must
be “uninhibited, robust, and wide open,” and may often include
“vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on
government and public officials.”  To require critics of official
conduct to guarantee the truth of all their factual assertions would
lead to self-censorship, rather than free debate.
b.    The Court found that Alabama’s libel rules were similar to
that of the original federal Sedition Act of 1798.  The Sedition Act
made it a crime publish any “false scandalous and malicious writings”
against the federal government with intent to bring it into “contempt
or disrepute.”  Although the Act expired before the Supreme Court
determined its constitutionality, the view that the Act violated the
First Am. had “carried the day in the court of history.”  So, Brennan
reasoned, in this case criticism of government public officials could
not be curtailed, without violating the First Am.
1.    Dave asks:  What is the relationship between seditious libel
and P in this case bringing suit against D?  Just as the
government—an official entity—cannot bring a seditious libel action
against people for falsely accusing government action, a government
official (such as Commissioner Sullivan) cannot bring suit against
people.  Why?  Because of the strong interest in protecting private
criticism of government action.  Dave says this is the “key” to this
case.
c.    The Court was not content just to strike down the libel
judgment as a disguised ban on criticizing the government.  Instead,
it articulated a formal rule, so that future speakers would not have
to worry about liability for libel in similar circumstances:  The
First Am. prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a
defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he
proves that the statement was made with “actual malice”—that is,
“with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not.”
1.    Dave asks:  Why does a democracy depend on false criticism of
the government (not just true criticism)?  For primarily two reasons.
As Brennan explains in his opinion, would-be critics of government
might still be deterred to speak out because of doubts concerning
their ability to prove defamatory statements are true.  Secondly,
“erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and [it] must be
protected if the freedoms of expression are to have ‘breathing space’
that they ‘need to survive’.”  This is a very important point.
2.    The burden is on P to show that D made the statement with
actual malice.  This is a very heavy burden to bear.