1-in new york times v. sullivan, the supreme court ruled that statements about public figures are examples of libel only when they are made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.
in which of the following ways does this ruling support a healthy democracy? (1 point)
a)it promotes competition among a variety of media sources
b)it allows people the freedom to criticize public officials
c)it fosters cooperation between the media and the government
d)it requires absolute certainty of all published information

2-which of the following examples support the notion that a free press is an essential element of a limited government?
(select 2)
a)journalists are entitled to cover trials
b)we need a fourth branch of the federal government
c)it is difficult for public officials to win libel cases
d)information can be withheld to protect national security
e)proper search warrants can be applied to the media

1. B - It allows people the freedom to criticize public officials.

When the citizens had the freedom to cricitize its own government, the government would be forced to live up to a certain standard. This would dramatically reduce the complacency within the government body, and the government become more likely to listen and create legislations that satisfy the majority of people.

2. A. Journalists are entitled to cover trials

and

C. It is difficult for public officials to win libel cases.

Through this, the journalist could act as a middle man that connect what happen within the government body, transform it into pieces of information, and give it to the people so we can form our own opinion about it. Difficulties to win libel cases favours journalists because it allow them to criticize public officials without direct threat of of being sued for smearing their name.

alaska is the answer to this

so what is your question?