There is also Times v Sullivan - The Court began by explaining that the First Amendment's protections had to be interpreted against the background of the United States' "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." The Court said that criticism of government and public officials was at the core of American rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It observed that "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and ... must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space that they need ... to survive".