Also known as: actual malice standard · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan standard · Times v. Sullivan actual malice · NYT actual malice · Sullivan actual malice · actual malice
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 about official conduct or a matter of public concern was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
A magazine reporter interviewed Natalie Norris, a city council member, about budget negotiations. The published article placed Norris in quotation marks saying she had accepted favors from developers, when the recording showed only a discussion of routine disclosures. Norris sued for defamation. The court held that the material change in meaning from the deliberate alteration satisfied the actual malice standard.
Norton Bank issued a credit report on Northern Manufacturing that contained damaging but unverified claims about the company's solvency. The report went only to a handful of subscribers and did not address any public controversy. Northern Manufacturing sued for defamation. The court permitted recovery of presumed damages without requiring proof of actual malice because the speech concerned a private matter.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nancy Nelson, a local caterer with no public role, was accused on a food blog of health code violations. The post relied on an unverified tip and no inspection records were checked. Nelson sued for defamation. The court applied ordinary negligence standards rather than actual malice because Nelson remained a private figure.
A cable network aired a parody sketch depicting Nathaniel Newman, a state legislator, taking bribes. Newman sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court required Newman to prove actual malice because the expressive publication concerned a public figure and the First Amendment barred recovery absent that showing.
A newspaper published an editorial accusing Nicole Navarro, the police chief, of ignoring misconduct by officers under her command. Navarro proved the paper had internal documents showing the opposite but published anyway. The court held that the knowing falsehood met the actual malice standard and permitted recovery.
A sports magazine accused a prominent college coach of fixing games. The coach proved the editors possessed contradictory information yet printed the story to boost circulation. The court applied the actual malice standard to the public figure plaintiff and found liability on the evidence of reckless disregard.
Public officials and public figures must prove actual malice when suing over statements about official conduct or matters of public concern. Private figures need not meet this standard for ordinary defamation claims.
Supporting sources
No. Actual malice is a constitutional term of art meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Personal animosity alone does not satisfy the standard.
Supporting sources
A private plaintiff may recover presumed or punitive damages only upon a showing of actual malice when the speech involves a matter of public concern. On matters of purely private concern the actual malice requirement does not apply.
Supporting sources
No. Only a deliberate alteration that materially changes the meaning of the plaintiff's statement satisfies the actual malice standard. Trivial changes that leave the meaning substantially accurate do not suffice.
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…