However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but The Court today refuses to apply New York Times to the private individual, as contrasted with the public official and the public figure. "Sixty years ago, 2,442 newspapers were published daily nationwide, and 689 cities had competing dailies. & Mary L.Rev. In his opinion for the plurality in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., . We recognized in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 279, that a rule requiring a critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all of his factual contentions would inevitably lead to self-censorship when
""If a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it cannot suddenly become less so merely because a private individual is involved, or because in some sense the individual did not 'voluntarily' choose to become involved.
Apparently abandoning the salutary "'independent examination of the whole record' .
so as to assure ourselves that the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on Conversely, some aspects of the lives of even the most public men fall outside the area of matters of public or general concern. . In "But it is recognized that punishment for the abuse of the liberty accorded to the press is essential to the protection of the public, and that the common law rules that subject the libeler to responsibility for the public offense, as well as for the private injury, are not abolished by the protection extended in our constitutions. U.S., at 80 These accusations are generally considered defamatory. "[The First Amendment] thereby guard[s] in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press insomuch, that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, 8 The Works of Thomas Jefferson 464-465 (Ford ed.1904) (emphasis added).Senator Calhoun, in reporting to Congress, assumed the invalidity of the Act to be a matter "which no one now doubts." (1973). The debates in Congress and the States over the Bill of Rights are unclear and inconclusive on any articulated intention of the Framers as to the free press guarantee.
. The state interest in compensating injury to the reputation of private individuals is therefore greater than for public officials and public figures. By so doing, the Court leaves what should prove to be sufficient and adequate breathing space for a vigorous press.
Mott, For further expressions of the general proposition that libels are not protected by the First Amendment, "The language of the First Amendment is to be read not as barren words found in a dictionary, but as symbols of historic experience illumined by the presuppositions of those who employed them. Liability in defamation cases against individuals cannot be imposed without fault, but states otherwise can craft their own defamation laws. POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined.
[With the First Amendment made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth, [Continued recognition of the possibility of state libel suits for public discussion of public issues leaves the freedom of speech honored by the Fourteenth Amendment a diluted version of First Amendment protection. I do not suggest that the decision is illegitimate or beyond the bounds of judicial review, but it is an ill-considered exercise of the power entrusted to this Court, particularly when the Court has not had the benefit of briefs and argument addressed to most of the major issues which the Court now decides. MR. JUSTICE WHITE characterizes New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,