Summary

William J. Brennan, Jr. Garrison v. Louisiana — Opinion of the Court

The genious of the Constitution, and the opinion of the people of the United States, cannot be overruled by those who administer the Government. Among those principles deemed sacred in America, among those sacred rights considered as forming the bulwark of their liberty, which the Government contemplates with awful reverence and would approach only with the most cautious circumspection, there is no one of which the importance is more deeply impressed on the public mind than the liberty of the press.
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Garrison v. Louisiana — Opinion of the Court

We now hold that proof of actual malice is relevant to seditious libel-that seditious libel will lie for a knowingly false statement or one made with reckless disregard of the truth.
If malice is all that is needed, inferences from facts as found by the jury will easily oblige. How can we sit in review on a cold record and find no evidence of malice (cf. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S., at 285-288, 84 S.Ct., at 728-730) when it is the commonplace of life that heat and passion subtly turn to malice in actual fact?
Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr. Garrison v. Louisiana — Opinion of the Court

I believe that the Court is mistaken if it thinks that requiring proof that statements were 'malicious' or 'defamatory' will really create any substantial hurdle to block public officials from punishing those who criticize the way they conduct their office. Indeed, 'malicious,' 'seditious,' and other such evil-sounding words often have been invoked to punish people for expressing their views on public affairs. Fining men or sending them to jail for criticizing public officials not only jeopardizes the free, open public discussion which our Constitution guarantees, but can wholly stifle it.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature