a. White renewed his criticism not only of the Gertz rule, but he attacked the balance struck in Sullivan itself. He writes that false statements of fact about public officials do not serve First Am. interests in the flow of intelligence concerning government. The Sullivan requirement that actual malice be shown disposes of libel actions (because Ps do not sue due to their “almost impossible” burden of proof) and thus prevents the issue of truth or falsity from ever being decided. White’s suggests limiting damages (i.e., providing only for actual dams, not punitive or presumed dams) in libel cases, instead of escalating P’s burden of proof to an almost impossible level, as NY Times did. This would provide ample protection to the press while allowing public officials to go to court and vindicate their reputation.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Supreme Court Cases and are similar to What was White’s concurrence on the Dun & Bradstreet case?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.