Final answer:
The Supreme Court rejected all three bases offered by Sullivan for finding the New York Times published the defamatory advertisement with actual malice.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the landmark case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court addressed whether the New York Times published the allegedly defamatory advertisement with actual malice. The advertisement claimed that certain actions against civil rights protesters, including Martin Luther King Jr., were part of a campaign to destroy their movement. L.B. Sullivan, a city commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, felt that the advertisement defamed him personally, even though it did not mention him by name. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, set a higher standard for public officials to claim defamation, thereby rejecting all the bases Sullivan offered for finding actual malice on the part of the Times.
According to the court, a public official must show that a statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth (malicious intent), which is now known as the actual malice standard. This ruling significantly protected freedom of the press by making it more difficult for public figures to win defamation suits, thereby enforcing a strong interpretation of the First Amendment.
Answer: a) rejected all.