Also known as: defamatory statements · defamatory
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statement that tends to injure the reputation of a person referred to in it. The statement is likely to lower that person in the estimation of reasonable people and in particular to cause that person to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, or dislike.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Denise Donovan, a well-known political commentator, sued a rival after the rival stated on television that Donovan had accepted bribes from foreign interests. Donovan proved the statement false but could not show the rival knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard. The court entered judgment for the rival because Donovan failed to meet the actual malice standard required for public figures.
Deanna Davenport told several colleagues that Dwight Dorsey had stolen company funds to finance a personal trip. Dorsey proved the accusation false and showed it imputed a criminal offense. The court held Dorsey could recover without proving special harm because the statement constituted slander per se.
Dover Bank circulated a credit report to five subscribers stating that Dixon Foods faced imminent insolvency. The report was false and caused the company to lose a major contract. Because the report addressed a private commercial matter, the court permitted recovery of presumed damages without requiring proof of actual malice.
David Dawson posted that Destiny Davis routinely falsified safety records at her factory. Davis sued and introduced evidence that the post would lead reasonable readers to believe she had committed a crime. The court required Davis to prove the defamatory character of the communication as part of her prima facie case.
Diane Dawson, a private citizen, sued a local newspaper that falsely reported she had been arrested for shoplifting. Dawson showed the paper failed to verify the story with court records. The court allowed recovery under a negligence standard but denied presumed damages because Dawson did not prove actual malice.
A newspaper published an editorial accusing Mayor Drake of misusing public funds for personal travel. Drake proved the facts were false but offered no evidence the editors knew of the falsity. The court dismissed the claim because Drake, as a public official, had to show actual malice regarding his official conduct.
A plaintiff must show the statement tends to injure reputation by lowering the person in the estimation of the community or deterring others from associating with the person. The plaintiff also bears the burden of proving the defamatory character of the communication when the issue is raised.
Supporting sources
A private plaintiff may recover presumed or punitive damages without showing actual malice only when the defamatory statements do not involve matters of public concern. When the speech addresses a matter of public concern, the plaintiff must prove actual malice to obtain such damages.
…(joined by Douglas) Concurring opinions Concurring — Justice Black This is not to say that the Constitution protects defamatory statements directed against the private conduct of a public official or private citizen. Freedom of press and of speech insures that government will respond to the will of the people and that changes…
…the ordinary private citizen is concerned and introduces the concept that the media will be liable for negligence in publishing defamatory statements
…magazines in a distant State may fairly be held accountable in that forum for damages resulting there from an allegedly defamatory story. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., supra ; see also Calder v. Jones , 465 U. S. 783 (1984) (suit against author and editor). And with respect to interstate contractual…
…is for the protection of the public welfare." Second. The statute is directed not simply at the circulation of scandalous and defamatory statements
…Welch, Inc. , 418 U. S. 323, 344, n. 9 (1974): "Of course, an opportunity for rebuttal seldom suffices to undo [the] harm of a
A public official must prove actual malice only for statements relating to official conduct. The standard protects robust public debate while allowing recovery when the defendant published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Public figures must prove actual malice to recover for defamation, just as public officials must. The requirement extends the constitutional protection to statements about individuals who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety.
A defamatory statement is actionable without special harm when it constitutes slander per se by imputing a criminal offense, a loathsome disease, or other categories recognized at common law. Libel is generally actionable without special harm as well.