沙利文案

BackgroundofthecaseOnMarch29,1960,theNewYorkTimescarriedafull-pageadvertisementtitledHeedTheirRisingVoices,whichsolicitedfundstodefendMartinLutherKing,Jr.againstanAlabamaperjuryindictment.Theadvertisementdescribedactionsagainstcivilrightsprotesters,someoftheminaccurately,someofwhichinvolvedthepoliceforceofMontgomery,Alabama.ReferringtotheAlabamaStatePolice,theadvertisementstatedthatTheyhavearrested[MartinLutherKing,Jr.]seventimes...However,atthatpointhehadonlybeenarrestedfourtimes.AlthoughtheMontgomeryPublicSafetycommissioner,L.B.Sullivan,wasnotnamedintheadvertisement,theinaccuratecriticismoftheactionsbythepolicewereconsideredasdefamationagainsthimaswellbyvirtueofhispositionanddutytosupervisethepolicedepartment.1960年3月29日，《纽约时报》刊载了题为“留心他们高涨的呼声”（HeedTheirRisingVoices）的整版广告，为民权领袖马丁·路德·金受到阿拉巴马州伪证罪指控的辩护筹集资金，在广告中提及了一些阻挠民权领袖的行动，但部分内容失实，而且涉及到蒙哥马利市警察。尽管蒙哥马利市民选市政专员L·B·沙利文并没有在广告中被指名道姓地点出来，但是鉴于他的职位，加上他的职责是监督警察部门，对于警方行动的失实批评被认为是对他个人的诽谤。Alabamalawdeniedapublicofficerrecoveryofpunitivedamagesinalibelactionbroughtonaccountofapublicationconcerningtheirofficialconductunlesstheyfirstmakeawrittendemandforapublicretractionandthedefendantfailsorrefusestocomply,soSullivansentsucharequest.TheTimesdidnotpublisharetractioninresponsetothedemand.Insteaditwrotealetterstating,amongotherthings,thatwe...aresomewhatpuzzledastohowyouthinkthestatementsinanywayreflectonyou,andyoumight,ifyoudesire,letusknowinwhatrespectyouclaimthatthestatementsintheadvertisementreflectonyou.[1]Sullivandidnotrespondbutinsteadfiledthissuitafewdayslater.Healsosuedfourblackministersmentionedinthead,specificallyRalphAbernathy,S.S.Seay,Sr.,FredShuttlesworth,andJosephLowery.Sullivanwon$500,000inanAlabamacourtjudgment.阿拉巴马州法律要求，政府官员受到出版商的诽谤，必须书面要求出版商公开道歉，且在被告未执行或拒绝执行的情况下，方可要求惩罚性赔偿，因此沙利文发出了书面要求。《时报》拒绝收回报道，并回信表示，“我们……很不解您为何认为广告是在说您的，”并且“您如果愿意，请告知我们您是依据什么认为这个广告是在影射您的”。沙利文并没有回应，而是在数日后提起告诉。他还起诉了广告中提及的四名黑人牧师：拉尔夫•阿伯内西（RalphAbernathy）、S·S·西伊（S.S.Seay）、弗雷德·舒特尔斯沃（FredShuttlesworth）和约瑟夫·洛里（JosephLowery）。在阿拉巴马法庭的判决中，沙利文胜诉，获赔50万美元。TheTimesdid,however,subsequentlypublisharetractionoftheadvertisementuponthedemandofGovernorJohnPattersonofAlabama,whoassertedthatthepublicationchargedhimwithgravemisconductand...improperactionsandomissionsasGovernorofAlabamaandex-officiochairmanoftheStateBoardofEducationofAlabama.WhenaskedtoexplainwhytherehadbeenaretractionfortheGovernorbutnotforSullivan,theSecretaryoftheTimestestified:Wedidthatbecausewedidn'twantanythingthatwaspublishedbytheTimestobeareflectionontheStateofAlabamaandtheGovernorwas,asfaraswecouldsee,theembodimentoftheStateofAlabamaandtheproperrepresentativeofthestateand,furthermore,wehadbythattimelearnedmoreoftheactualfactswhichtheadpurportedtoreciteand,finally,theaddidrefertotheactionofthestateauthoritiesandtheBoardofEducationpresumablyofwhichtheGovernoristheex-officiochairman....Ontheotherhand,hetestifiedthathedidnotthinkthatanyofthelanguageintherereferredtoMr.Sullivan.但是，随后《时报》根据州长约翰·马尔科姆·帕特森（JohnMalcolmPatterson）的要求，发表了致歉声明。帕特森坚称，该广告指控他“在担任阿拉巴马州州长和阿拉巴马州教育委员会主席时犯下严重失职和不当行为”。当被要求解释为什么向州长而非沙利文致歉时，时报的秘书官作证道：“我们这样做，是因为我们不想让《时报》发表的内容成为对阿拉巴马州的反映，依我们所见，州长是阿拉巴马州的象征，也是州的合适代表，另外，我们在当时已经对广告中所述内容的事实情况有了更多的了解，最后，广告的确提及了州政府和州长担任主席的教育委员会的行为……”而他在作证时表示，他并不认为广告中“有任何文字是针对沙利文先生的”。UnderAlabamalawasappliedinthiscase,apublicationis‘libelousperse’ifthewords‘tendtoinjureaperson***inhisreputation’orto‘bring(him)intopubliccontempt’;thetrialcourtstatedthatthestandardwasmetifthewordsaresuchasto‘injurehiminhispublicoffice,orimputemisconducttohiminhisoffice,orwantofofficialintegrity,orwantoffidelitytoapublictrust.Once‘libelperse’hasbeenestablished,thedefendanthasnodefenseastostatedfactsunlesshecanpersuadethejurythattheyweretrueinalltheirparticulars.nlesshecandischargetheburdenofprovingtruth,generaldamagesarepresumed,andmaybeawardedwithoutproofofpecuniaryinjury.应用于此案中的阿拉巴马州法律规定，如果某一出版物的文字“试图伤害一个人的名誉”或者“使之受到公众的蔑视”，这一出版物就构成了“实质性诽谤”。一旦“实质性诽谤”成立，除非被告能够说服陪审团他所发表的言论在所有细节方面都是真实的，否则他就无法用任何事实来为自己辩护。如果被告不能够履行提供真实性证明的责任，那么即使在没有相关金钱损失证据的情况下，法院也可能会作出给予一般性的损害赔偿的判决。ISSUEWhetherAlabamalaw,asappliedtoanactionbroughtbyapublicofficialagainstcriticsofhisofficialconduct,abridgesthefreedomofspeechandofthepressthatisguaranteedbytheFirstandFourteenthAmendments.当阿拉巴马州这一法律应用于对政府官员提起的、对其公务行为进行批评的诉讼案件时，该法律是否违反了宪法第一修正案和第十四修正案所保障的言论和出版自由。Thecourt’sdecisionThecourtthinks,arulecompellingthecriticofofficialconducttoguaranteethetruthofallhisfactualassertions-andtodosoonpainoflibeljudgmentsvirtuallyunlimitedinamount-leadstoacomparable‘self-censorship.’Allowanceofthedefenseoftruth,withtheburdenofprovingitonthedefendant,doesnotmeanthatonlyfalsespeechwillbedeterred.Undersucharule,would-becriticsofofficialconductmaybedeterredfromvoicingtheircriticism,eventhoughitisbelievedtobetrueandeventhoughitisinfacttrue,becauseofdoubtwhetheritcanbeprovedincourtorfearoftheexpenseofhavingtodoso.Therulethusdampensthevigorandlimitsthevarietyofpublicdebate.ItisinconsistentwiththeFirstandFourteenthAmendments.法院认为，一项法规强制批评官员行为时，必须保证全部批评事实的真实性—违反这一法规的人将以诽谤罪被判数额不限的罚款——这导致了相对的“自我审查”。把举证的责任强加给被告，允许其对真实性进行辩护，并不意味着只有错误的言论将被阻止。在这