Main Arguments of the Case

[Elli Iacobellis]

New York Times claimed that they had no intention of harming anyone as the result of their published works. Further, the New York Times Company failed to see how the article related directly to Sullivan; when confronting Sullivan about how in fact it did relate to him on a personal level, Sullivan gave no answer. ''

Sullivan believed the comments in the advertisement related directly to him on a personal level, claiming the use of the word "police" linked him to the problem. Alabama law states that in order for a case to become libel, it must have the person referred to by name. However, since local residents believed the article referred specifically to Sullivan, the case became "libel per se". ''

Check It Out
h t t p : / / w w w . o y e z . o r g / c a s e s / 1 9 6 0 - 1 9 6 9 / 1 9 6 3 / 1 9 6 3 _ 3 9

Sources:
h t t p : / / e n c y c l o p e d i a o f a l a b a m a . o r g / f a c e / A r t i c l e . j s p ? i d = h - 2 9 9 0