In United States defamation law, actual malice is a legal requirement imposed upon

public official An official is someone who holds an office (function or mandate, regardless of whether it carries an actual working space with it) in an organization or government and participates in the exercise of authority (either their own or that of the ...

s or

public figure A public figure is a person who has achieved fame, prominence or notoriety within a society, whether through achievement, luck, action, or in some cases through no purposeful action of their own. In the context of defamation actions (libel and ...

s when they file suit for

libel Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions ...

(defamatory printed communications). Compared to other individuals who are less well known to the general public, public officials and public figures are held to a higher standard of proof to succeed in a defamation lawsuit.

History

The

Supreme Court In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, high (or final) court of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of ...

adopted the actual malice standard in its landmark 1964 ruling in '' New York Times Co. v. Sullivan'', in which the Warren Court held that: Although defined within the context of a media defendant, the rule requiring proof of actual malice applies to all defendants including individuals. The standard can make it very difficult to prevail in a defamation case, even when allegations against a public figure are unfair or proven false. Rather than being newly invented for the case, the term was used already in existing libel law. In many jurisdictions, proof of "actual malice" was required for punitive damages to be awarded or for other increased penalties. For example, ''Times v. Sullivan'' examined an existing Alabama statute that required proof of actual malice before an award of punitive damages would be permitted. Since proof of the writer's malicious intentions is hard to ascertain, proof that the writer knowingly published a falsehood was generally accepted as proof of malice (under the assumption that only a malicious person would knowingly publish a falsehood). In ''Sullivan'', the Supreme Court adopted the term and gave it constitutional significance.

Proof of malice

Actual malice is different from

common law Common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes, it is largely based on prece ...

malice, a term indicating spite or ill will. It may also differ from malice as defined in state libel law, as reflected in the 1983 case of '' Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc.'', although states may not define a lower threshold for defamation claims than that required by the First Amendment. Actual malice may be shown in many ways, as long as the claim is properly supported by admissible evidence. Malice may be proven through any competent evidence, either direct or circumstantial. All of the relevant circumstances surrounding the transaction may be shown, provided they are not too remote, including threats, other defamatory statements, subsequent statements made by the defendant, any circumstances that indicate the existence of rivalry, ill will, or hostility between the parties, and facts that tend to show a reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights on the part of the defendant.

References

{{reflist Defamation

History

Proof of malice

See also

References