Actual malice in United States law is a legal requirement imposed upon public officials or public figures when they file suit for libel (defamatory printed communications). Unlike other individuals who are less well-known to the general public, public officials and public figures are held to a higher standard for what they must ...
The case that established “actual malice” as the degree of fault with which the media must have published a defamatory statement about a public official for him or her to successfully sue was a product of the civil rights struggle in the South in the early 1960s. A discussion of the facts of the case is instructive in helping define ...
Actual malice is a standard that must be met in certain defamation cases. This page will gives a clear explanation of actual malice. Examples included.
It should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant's actual state of mind at the time of publication. Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication.
Actual malice is based on what the defendant was actually thinking at the time he published the defamatory statement. In this way, public-figure defamation cases differ from private-figure defamation cases. Private individuals only have to show negligence, or that a reasonable person would have researched the statement ...
Actual malice is a statement made with a reckless disregard for truth. Actual malice can be established through circumstantial evidence. High degree of awareness of falsity is required to.
MALICE, ACTUAL. Publication of defamatory material "with knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The term originated in a landmark 1964 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that 'public officials' could not recover damages from defamatory material unless they established that it ...
Jan 31, 2014 ... In an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court found that the ATSA immunity provision was patterned after the New York Times actual malice standard, under which a plaintiff must show that the statements at issue are false to prevail in a defamation action. The Court reiterated that actual ...
Feb 7, 2012 ... [T]hese definitions distort common English . . . . When the Supreme Court uses a word, it means what the Court wants it to mean. 'Actual malice' is now a term of art having nothing to do with actual malice.”1.