Contact Form Contact Form

Defamation of a Public Figure

Defamation of a Public Figure

 

Defamation of a Public Figure

 

 

A lawsuit for defamation has the following basic elements: (1) making a false statement; (2) about a person; (3) to others; and (4) damages (if the harm to the person is not apparent). There is a fifth element when the person is a public official or public figure. In such a case, the person who made the statement has to have made it with a known or reckless disregard of the truth. This article confers the fifth element for defamation of a public official or public figure.

 

 

Private vs. Public

 

 

There is no fifth element to prove if the person allegedly defamed is a private individual. A private individual is a person who does not hold a public office relevant to the allegedly defamatory statement. A private individual is a person who does not act or work in a public environment relevant to the allegedly defamatory statement. A private individual is a person who is not involved in an event of public interest.

 

 

There is a fifth element to prove if the person allegedly defamed is a public official. A public official is a person who holds a public office relevant to the allegedly defamatory statement. There is a fifth element to prove if the person is a public figure. A public figure is a person who acts or works in a public environment relevant to the alleged defamatory statement, or a person who is involved in an event of public interest relevant to the alleged defamatory statement. A public official or public official must prove the element required by the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

 

 

New York Times v. Sullivan

 

 

In this landmark case, a public official alleged that a newspaper libeled him by falsely alleging that he had participated in a “wave of terror” against certain civil rights activists. The trial court found in favor of the public official. The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court pointed to “a 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 constitutional law “prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves the statement was made with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with a knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

 

 

The New York Times v. Sullivan standard was latter extended to public figures. Thus, in addition to the elements that a private individual must prove, a public official or public figure must also prove that the statement was made with malice. Malice is a known or reckless disregard of the truth.

Copyright 2012 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

Recent Blog Posts

Update on Wrongful Death Claim Against Apple for Not Implementing Lock-Out Technology

Update on Wrongful Death Claim Against Apple for Not Implementing Lock-Out Technology This week a judge in a Santa Clara Superior Court sided with Apple. in a tentative ruling, Riggs vs. Apple, Inc. History of the Wrongful Death Claim Multiple plaintiffs who had lost children and family members in wrongful death accidents, have joined forces, […]

Despite the Risks of Distracted Driving Indiana Lawmakers Lack the Resolve to Ban Handheld Cell Phones

Despite the Risks of Distracted Driving Indiana Lawmakers Lack the Resolve to Ban Handheld Cell Phones A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in partnership with Virginia Tech shows texting while driving (TWD) is on the rise for the age group between 16 and 24 year olds. Statistically, teens are more likely […]

Common Causes of Motorcycle Accidents

According to statistics, incidents of motorcycle accidents have been on the rise since 2006. Cycling accidents may cause serious injury or death and are often the result of one of the following circumstances: Car operator turns in front of the bike If the operator of a motorized vehicle fails to accurately judge a cyclist’s speed […]

Cell Phone Manufacturers Walk a Fine Line between Social and Personal Responsibility – Car accident lawyers

 Cell Phone Manufacturers Walk a Fine Line between Social and Personal Responsibility – Car Accident Lawyers Ward & Ward Law Firm Pressure is being put on cell phone manufacturers to include “lock-out” technology in their mobile devices to prevent drivers from accessing certain features while driving. Who bears the responsibility for car accident injuries and […]

Indiana Personal Injury Attorney Selected for Inclusion in Best Lawyers in America©

Ward & Ward Law Firm Announces Partner in Personal Injury Law Firm is Selected for Inclusion in Best Lawyers in America Indianapolis personal injury attorney, wrongful death attorney and medical malpractice attorney, Charlie Ward, has been selected by his peers for inclusion into the 23rd annual edition of The Best Lawyers in America© Indianapolis, Indiana […]