Did the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case or Dusky v. United States come first?
Dusky v. United States
Title: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Passage: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States.  It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press.  The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a public figure, prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.  Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such claims by public figures rarely prevail.
Title: Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton
Passage: Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657(1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964).  In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case.  However, the Court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice.
Title: Dusky v. United States
Passage: Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial.  The Court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Dusky v. United States