Also known as: reckless disregard · actual malice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A subjective mental state in which a publisher entertains serious doubts about the truth of a statement or purposefully avoids learning facts that would reveal its falsity. This standard establishes reckless disregard for the truth under the actual malice doctrine and permits recovery by public officials or figures in defamation actions.
Henry Hoffman drove his delivery truck through a red light while texting. A pedestrian stepped into the crosswalk without looking. The jury found Hoffman acted with reckless disregard for the pedestrian's safety. The pedestrian's own inattention did not bar recovery.
Hazel Hoffman gave an interview to a national magazine. The reporter rearranged her words into a quotation that reversed her stated position on a policy issue. The change materially altered the meaning. Hazel proved the alteration created a high degree of awareness of probable falsity.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Hakim Hall posted on social media that a sitting judge accepted bribes. Hall had no evidence beyond unverified rumors. The post was made while Hall knew he was running for judicial office himself. The statement triggered discipline under the rule against reckless disregard for truth.
Hope Howard published a blog accusing a city council member of embezzlement. Howard relied solely on an anonymous tip and never checked public records. The council member proved Hope entertained serious doubts yet published anyway. The high degree of awareness of probable falsity supported liability.
Hana Hashimoto circulated a credit report to five subscribers stating a private firm was insolvent. The report contained no matter of public concern. The firm recovered presumed damages without proving actual malice because the speech was private.
Hakeem Harris sped through a school zone while checking his phone. A child darted into the street. The jury considered the reckless disregard of safety when deciding causation. The heightened mental state supported a finding of sufficient causal relation for liability.
The standard requires subjective awareness that the statement was probably false. Mere failure to investigate or carelessness is insufficient. The publisher must have entertained serious doubts yet proceeded anyway.
Supporting sources
Yes. Private plaintiffs need not prove actual malice to recover for defamation. The high degree of awareness requirement arises only when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure and the speech concerns official conduct or public concern.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the alteration materially changes the meaning conveyed by the original statement, the change itself can demonstrate the required high degree of awareness of probable falsity.
…conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice"that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. An oft-cited statement of a like rule, which has been adopted by a number of state courts, is found in the Kansas case of Coleman v. MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711,…