Final answer:
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that a public official must prove 'actual malice' in a libel case, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court established that a public official who sues for libel must prove that the defamatory statement was made with 'actual malice.' This term is defined as knowledge that a statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. This ruling underscores the protection of free speech, particularly in the context of political discourse, ensuring that public figures have a higher threshold to claim defamation, thereby safeguarding robust and open criticism, which is a keystone of democratic society.
The Court's decision emphasized that the First Amendment rights, notably the freedom of the press, include the ability to make mistakes in reporting, as long as those mistakes are not made maliciously or with a blatant disregard for the truth. The question specifically asks which option characterizes the level of proof required for a public official to win a libel suit, according to this precedent. The correct answer is 'a) actual malice.' This standard is crucial for the media's role in holding public officials accountable and enables them to discuss and critique public figures without the overwhelming fear of legal reprisals for inadvertent inaccuracies.