What is meant by "actual malice" when a party brings suit against the Media for Slander or Libel?

Question

Must a Plaintiff, in prosecuting a civil action for libel or slander against the Media (government's watchdog), surmount a higher burden of proof than would be the case if a garden variety defamation suit was brought against a traditional private defendant?

Answer 1

To begin with, in US law, libel is a written statement while slander is hurtful spoken statement.

Further, 'actual malice' was defined in US Supreme Court case Hustle v. Falwel(1988).

In the above case, it was upheld that certain declamatory statement s were protected by the First Amendment of U S Constitution. So, actual malice' means a public figure can sue the media if the latter knew the statement made wasn't true at that time or they were reckless on what is true or not.

Answer 2

Yes!

> There is a critical difference between the two types of actions, predicated on the fact that the Media enjoys special constitutional rights (freedom of the press and freedom of speech) not enjoyed by the average citizen. A court must balance the public policy in favor of "truth-telling" against the Media's special status under the First Amendment.

> If a Public Figure or Limited Public Figure brings a defamation action against the Media, the Plaintiff must show that the Media-Defendant knew or "should have known" that a statement in a news report was false or that a reporter, broadcaster, or influencer acted in reckless disregard of whether a report was or was not true).

> The "knew or should have known" standard is discussed in the seminal case of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). It's always best to understand a Rule of Law "in context". There are numerous actions or omissions that might constitute reckless conduct. Perhaps a reporter had an insufficient number of sources backing up his/her publication or failed to have his/her Article "fact-checked" before the presses were scheduled to roll.

> The doctrine of "knew or should have known" is referred to as the "Actual Malice" formula or test.

> New York Times v. Sullivan only applies if the Plaintiff is a Public Figure or Limited Public Figure. This is best explained by example. The President is obviously a Public Figure (at least for four years under normal conditions). However, a statement by John Q. Public commenting on one minor political issue in response to one reporter's question, and who then withdraws from the public eye, is "at best" a Limited Public Figure. Defamation of a Public Figure is relatively fair game for the entire length of time that the Plaintiff is in the eye of the public. In contrast, the Actual Malice burden/test with respect to a Limited Public Figure is restricted to false statements that were made to an audience while the Plaintiff was- in a very narrow fashion- a fleeting subject of public interest.