Also known as: NYT malice · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan malice · actual malice · Sullivan 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 plaintiff to prove that a defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for its truth.
Neil Nair, a prominent senator, gave an interview to a national magazine. The reporter rearranged Nair's words in a published quote to suggest he admitted taking bribes. Nair proved the rearrangement created a materially different meaning from his actual statements.
Nyah Ndlovu owned a small private firm. A credit agency sent a report to five subscribers stating the firm faced imminent insolvency. Ndlovu recovered presumed damages without proving actual malice because the report addressed a private concern.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nina Nielsen, a local teacher with no public role, sued a newspaper over a false story accusing her of classroom misconduct. The jury awarded presumed and punitive damages after finding only negligence. The award was reversed because actual malice was not shown.
Nikhil Narayan, a well-known athlete, sued a tabloid for a false-light privacy claim based on a fabricated interview. The court required Narayan to prove actual malice before recovering damages for the emotional distress caused by the publication.
Natalie Norris, the elected city comptroller, sued a newspaper for an editorial accusing her of misusing public funds. Norris could recover only by proving the editors knew the charges were false or acted with reckless disregard of their truth.
Nancy Nelson, a government-funded scientist, sued a senator who issued press releases calling her research wasteful. The court held Nelson was not a public official for the statements about her work and therefore did not have to prove actual malice.
The plaintiff must show the defendant published the statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. Reckless disregard requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity or serious doubts about the truth.
Supporting sources
No. Private figures need only prove negligence for compensatory damages in most jurisdictions. Actual malice is required only when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure or when seeking presumed or punitive damages on a matter of public concern.
Supporting sources
A private plaintiff may recover presumed damages without actual malice only when the defamatory speech does not involve a matter of public concern. Speech on private matters receives less First Amendment protection.
Supporting sources
No. The alteration must result in a material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement. Trivial or non-material changes do not suffice to prove knowledge of falsity.
Supporting sources
Yes. Public figures must prove actual malice to recover for false-light invasion of privacy arising from expressive publications about them.
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…