This is the case the court declined to take, sole dissenter was Thomasso libel is ok with 8 of them:
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
By Stephen Wermiel
Related cases in Libel and Slander
The landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case led to new protections against publishers who, in their criticism of government, are sued by government officials for libel. The New York Times was sued by the Montgomery, Alabama, city commissioner for errors in a civil rights advertisement. The ad got some facts wrong, including the number of times Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested. The Supreme Court established that public officials must meet a higher standard for libel judgments and show that the publisher acted with knowledge that something was false.. In this photo, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., accompanied by Rev. Ralph D. Abernathy, center, is booked by city police Lt. D.H. Lackey in Montgomery, 1956. (AP Photo/Gene Herrick, used with permission from The Associated Press)
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court reversed a libel damages judgment against the New York Times. The decision established the important principle that the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press may protect libelous words about a public official in order to foster vigorous debate about government and public affairs.
This landmark decision constitutionalized libel law and arguably saved the civil rights movement.
Sullivan sued paper for mistakes in civil rights advertisement
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan began as a lawsuit against the newspaper for mistakes in a full-page civil rights fundraising editorial advertisement in 1960 entitled “Heed Their Rising Voices.”
The advertisement, protesting the treatment of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. by Alabama law enforcement, carried the names of prominent civil rights activists, including actors, writers, ministers, and other prominent Americans. The lawsuit was filed by L. B. Sullivan, an elected city commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, whose duties included supervision of the local police. Under Alabama law, Sullivan only needed to prove that there were mistakes and that they likely harmed his reputation. A jury awarded him $500,000 in damages, an enormous sum at the time.
Court dismissed damage award, adopted actual malice standard
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and dismissed the damage award. Writing for the majority, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. opined that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open” and said that vehement criticism and even mistakes were part of the price a democratic society must pay for freedom. (The advertisement had gotten wrong the number of times Martin Luther King Jr. had been arrested in Alabama, four times instead of seven, and details of police actions at Alabama State College.)…
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/186/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan