In new york times versus 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

It allows people the freedom to criticize public officials.

Explanation:

This question is incomplete. The complete question is the following:

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 and reckless disregard for the truth. How does this ruling support a healthy democracy?

This ruling was an extremely important one for our country, as it contributed to the strengthening of our democracy. This ruling stated that, while malice and reckless disregard for the truth cannot be tolerated, simple criticism of public officials can be part of our democracy. This supports freedom of speech, as well as freedom of the press, and contributes to holding our leaders accountable.

lincoln presided over the union victory in the american civil war, which dominated his presidency. a former whig, lincoln ran on a political platform opposed to the expansion of slavery in the territories. his election served as the immediate impetus for the outbreak of the american civil war.

i believe the answer is c