«“Samantha Barbas’ Actual Malice could not be more of-the-moment. . . .  Combining impressive research with sound legal reasoning… Barbas’ recounting of the history and context of the Sullivan decision underscores the fundamental importance to our democracy of robust protection against weaponized libel actions.”»

First Amendment News

"One might think that another book-length history and analysis of New York Times v. Sullivan would be superfluous, given the quality of Lewis’s Make No Law and Hall and Urofsky's New York Times v. Sullivan: Civil Rights, Libel Law, and the Free Press. Actual Malice, however, may become the go-to book for combining both perspectives in a single volume and enhancing them with some archival sources that the other two books did not use."
 

Choice Reviews

"Actual Malice is concise yet thorough, crisply written, brimming with sharp observations, amply documented, and admirably acknowledges different points of view."

Law and Liberty

"A law professor puts forth a detailed examination of New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision that defined libel laws and increased protections for journalists, in the context of the civil rights movement."

The New York Times Book Review

"A new book, Actual Malice, by Samantha Barbas, a law professor and historian, unfurls the story of the case and reminds readers that the triumph of press freedom was an outgrowth of the civil-rights struggle. Versions of the story have been told before, perhaps most famously in Anthony Lewis’s "Make No Law" more than three decades ago. Yet Barbas deftly employs archival sources—notably from the Times, from the Martin Luther King, Jr., papers, and from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference—to shed new light. Her book illuminates the effect of libel suits on journalists’ ability to cover the movement, the legal strategies used against those suits, and the impact of the case on the civil-rights movement itself. A heroic narrative in which the litigation helped vanquish segregationists serves to underscore what Barbas calls the 'centrality of freedom of speech to democracy.'"

The New Yorker

«“Barbas’s endorsement of the Sullivan decision is more nuanced than those of [Anthony] Lewis and [Aimee] Edmondson, and more reflective of the current moment. She appreciates the need for libel lawsuits at a time when ‘damaging falsehoods can spread online with a click, and reputations [can be] destroyed instantly.’ But she recognizes that the protections of Sullivan are needed as much, or more, by individuals as by media companies. The story of Sullivan, and of the precedent’s possible demise, reveals as much about our own times as it does the 1960s.”»

Jeffrey Toobin, The New York Review of Books