Also known as: actual malices · actual malice standard
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A fault standard in defamation actions that requires a public official or public figure plaintiff to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published a false statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
A fault standard in defamation actions that requires a public official or public figure plaintiff to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published a false statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
A deliberate intent to commit an injury, as evidenced by external circumstances.
A deliberate intent to commit an injury, as evidenced by external circumstances.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A national magazine published a profile of public figure Antonio Alvarado that included a quotation the reporter had deliberately rewritten to suggest Alvarado admitted to criminal conduct. The alteration changed the meaning of Alvarado's actual statements. Alvarado sued for defamation. The court held that the material change supported a finding of actual malice.
Avalon Pharmaceuticals received a credit report circulated only to a handful of subscribers that falsely stated the company was insolvent. Avalon sued the reporting agency for defamation and sought presumed damages. Because the report addressed a matter of private concern, the court permitted recovery without proof of actual malice.
Adrian Aguilar, a private citizen, was falsely accused in a newspaper article of professional misconduct. Aguilar sued for defamation. The court ruled that Aguilar need only prove negligence and could not recover presumed or punitive damages without showing actual malice.
Public figure Alexis Archer sued a magazine over a parody that portrayed Archer in an outrageous but non-factual manner. Archer asserted intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court required Archer to prove a false statement of fact made with actual malice.
Public official Albert Allen sued a newspaper over an advertisement that contained false statements about his official conduct. Allen offered no evidence that the publisher knew the statements were false or entertained serious doubts about their truth. The court entered judgment for the newspaper.
Aaron Adams, a public employee, circulated a questionnaire criticizing his supervisor's office policies. The supervisor fired Adams. Adams sued, claiming the discharge violated the First Amendment. The court analyzed whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern before applying constitutional protections.
Sheila Myers worked as an Assistant District Attorney in the New Orleans office under District Attorney Harry Connick for approximately five and a half years. In early October 1980, Myers was informed she would be transferred to prosecute cases in a different section of the criminal court. She strongly opposed the transfer and expressed her objections to several supervisors including Connick. On October 6, 1980, Myers received formal notice of the transfer. Later that day she discussed her concerns with First Assistant District Attorney Dennis Waldron. That night Myers prepared a questionnaire soliciting the views of fellow Assistant District Attorneys on office transfer policy, office morale, the need for a grievance committee, the level of confidence in supervisors, and whether employees felt pressured to work in political campaigns. The next morning, she typed and copied the questionnaire. She then distributed it to fifteen Assistant District Attorneys. Connick learned of the distribution shortly after noon on October 7. He returned to the office, informed Myers she was being terminated for refusing the transfer, and stated that distributing the questionnaire constituted insubordination. Myers filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the termination violated her First Amendment rights. The District Court found the questionnaire was the real reason for discharge, submitted the motivating-factor question to a jury which answered in Myers' favor, and ordered reinstatement with backpay. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
5 common questions
A public official must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published a false statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
Supporting sources
No. Actual malice is a term of art that refers only to knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. It does not require common-law malice in the sense of bias or ill will.
A private plaintiff may recover presumed or punitive damages without showing actual malice only when the defamatory statement does not involve a matter of public concern.
Supporting sources
States may define the appropriate standard of liability for defamatory statements about private individuals so long as they do not impose liability without fault. Negligence is the minimum constitutional requirement.
Supporting sources
Yes. At least in public-figure cases, a plaintiff must prove a false statement of fact made with actual malice to recover for false-light claims arising from expressive publications.
Supporting sources
…award of punitive damagesas distinguished from "general" damages, which are compensatory in natureapparently requires proof of actual malice under Alabama law, and the judge charged that "mere negligence or carelessness is not evidence of actual malice or malice in fact, and does not justify an award of exemplary or punitive…