<P> The term "malice" was not newly invented for the case; it came from existing libel law . In many jurisdictions, including Alabama, where the case arose, proof of "actual malice" (actual knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard for the truth) was required in order for punitive damages to be awarded, or for other increased penalties . Since a writer's malicious intent is hard to prove, proof that the writer knowingly published a falsehood was generally accepted as proof of malice, under the assumption that only a person with ill intent would knowingly publish something false . In Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Printing Co., 254 N.Y. 95 (1930), similarly, the court said: </P> <P> "The plaintiff alleges that this criticism of him and of his work was not fair and was not honest; it was published with actual malice, ill will and spite . If he establishes this allegation, he has made out a cause of action . No comment or criticism, otherwise libelous, is fair or just comment on a matter of public interest if it be made through actual ill will and malice ." (p. 106) </P> <P> In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court adopted the term "actual malice," giving it constitutional significance . </P> <P> The rule that somebody alleging defamation should have to prove untruth, rather than that the defendant should have to prove the truth of a statement, stood as a departure from the previous common law . In England, the development was specifically rejected in Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd and it was also rejected in Canada in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and more recently in Grant v. Torstar Corp . In Australia, the outcome of the case was followed in Theophanous v . The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd, but Theophanous was itself overruled by the High Court of Australia in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 . </P>

New york times v sullivan freedom of the press