<P> The ruling was revolutionary, because the court for the first time rejected virtually any attempt to squelch criticism of public officials--even if false--as antithetical to "the central meaning of the First Amendment ." Today, our understanding of freedom of the press comes in large part from the Sullivan case . Its core observations and principles remain unchallenged, even as the Internet has turned everyone into a worldwide publisher--capable of calling public officials instantly to account for their actions, and also of ruining reputations with the click of a mouse . </P> <Ul> <Li> Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) held that public figures who are not public officials may still sue news organizations if they disseminate information about them which is recklessly gathered and unchecked . </Li> <Li> Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974): Actual malice not necessary for defamation of private person if negligence is present . </Li> <Li> Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967). Extension of actual malice standard to false light invasion of privacy tort . </Li> <Li> Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988): Extending standard to intentional infliction of emotional distress . </Li> <Li> Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990): Existing law is sufficient to protect free speech without recognizing opinion privilege against libel claims . </Li> </Ul> <Li> Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) held that public figures who are not public officials may still sue news organizations if they disseminate information about them which is recklessly gathered and unchecked . </Li> <Li> Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974): Actual malice not necessary for defamation of private person if negligence is present . </Li>

Actual malice is a standard that is now applied in freedom of the press cases involving