Also known as: actual malice · actual malice standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional fault standard requiring a public official or public figure to prove that a defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
A national magazine interviewed Adrian Aguilar, a prominent senator, about budget negotiations. The published article changed Aguilar's words from supporting a modest increase to demanding a massive one. Aguilar sued for defamation. Because the alteration materially changed the meaning conveyed, the change supplies the knowledge of falsity element under the actual malice rule.
Avalon Pharmaceuticals received a credit report sent only to five banks stating it faced imminent insolvency. The report was false. Avalon sued the reporting agency for defamation and sought presumed damages. Because the report addressed a matter of private concern, the actual malice rule does not apply and presumed damages remain available without that showing.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Alan Ackerman managed a small hotel. A former guest posted that Ackerman had been caught stealing jewelry on camera. The post was false. Ackerman sued for defamation. As a private figure, Ackerman need not prove actual malice and may recover upon a showing of negligence alone.
A sketch comedy program aired a parody in which an actor playing Andrew Avery, the well-known governor, confessed to taking kickbacks. Avery sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because Avery is a public figure, the actual malice rule bars recovery absent a false statement of fact made with that level of fault.
Senator Alexandra Armstrong issued a press release accusing researcher Anika Anand of wasting public funds on frivolous experiments. Anand sued for defamation. As a public official suing over statements about official conduct, Anand must satisfy the actual malice rule by showing knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.
Senator Ava Adebayo issued newsletters labeling scientist Alexandra Armstrong's federally funded study wasteful. Armstrong sued for defamation. Because Armstrong's work did not involve substantial responsibility for governmental affairs, she does not qualify as a public official and need not prove actual malice.
A public official or public figure must prove actual malice when the defamatory statement concerns official conduct or a matter of public concern. Private figures need only prove negligence in most jurisdictions.
Supporting sources
Private plaintiffs may not recover presumed or punitive damages without showing actual malice when the speech involves a matter of public concern. The restriction does not apply to speech on matters of purely private concern.
Supporting sources
Yes. Public figures cannot recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress or false-light privacy claims arising from expressive publications without proving actual malice.
Supporting sources
Deliberate alteration of a quotation constitutes actual malice only if the change produces a material difference in meaning. Trivial or non-substantive alterations do not suffice.
Supporting sources
The category includes not only elected officials but also government employees who have or appear to the public to have substantial responsibility for or control over governmental affairs.
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…