Question

how has one specific supreme court ruling expanded freedom of speech by limiting a public officials ability to press for libel? (1 point)
new york times v sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.
adams v jefferson determined that pursuing charges of libel is unconstitutional
near v minnesota determined that libel is allowed if it serves the interest of the public
new york times v united states determined that libel is allowed in certain instances

Explanation:

In New York Times v Sullivan, the Supreme - Court set a high bar for public officials to sue for libel by requiring proof of actual malice, thus expanding freedom of speech. The other cases mentioned do not address the same libel - related standard for public officials.

Answer:

A. New York Times v Sullivan determined that actual malice must be proven to pursue charges of libel in the case of a public official.