Also known as: New York Times malice standards · actual malice · Sullivan standard · NYT malice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional requirement in defamation actions that a public official or public figure plaintiff prove that the defendant published a false statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for its truth. The standard protects robust public debate by shielding publishers from liability for good-faith errors. It extends to certain privacy and emotional-distress claims arising from speech about public figures and does not apply to private plaintiffs or speech on matters of purely private concern.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A magazine reporter interviewed Nobel Dynamics CEO Nigel Nelson about a merger and then published a profile that changed Nelson's words from "the deal looks promising" to "the deal is a fraud." Nelson sued for defamation. The court held that the deliberate change created a material shift in meaning and therefore satisfied the actual-malice element.
Navarro Industries, a small private company, received a credit report circulated only to five subscribers that falsely stated it was insolvent. Navarro sued the reporting agency for presumed damages. Because the report addressed a matter of private concern, the court permitted recovery without requiring proof of actual malice.
A principal emailed parents that private-school teacher Nalini Narula had been dismissed for grooming students after receiving only an anonymous tip. Narula sued for defamation. The court ruled that, as a private plaintiff, she need prove only negligence and could recover compensatory damages without showing actual malice.
A cable network aired a parody sketch portraying Governor Noah Nakamura confessing to bribery in exaggerated costume and with a laugh track. Nakamura sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed the claim because the governor could not show actual malice in the expressive publication.
Senator Nora Nash issued a newsletter accusing researcher Naveen Nanda of wasting federal grant money on frivolous experiments. Nanda sued for defamation. The court required Nanda to prove that Nash acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard because Nanda qualified as a public official on the matter of official conduct.
A senator awarded a "Golden Fleece" to scientist Naomi Norton for her federally funded research. Norton sued the senator and his aide for defamation in a newsletter. The court first determined that Norton was not a public figure and therefore did not have to satisfy the actual-malice standard.
A public official or public figure must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence when the defamatory statement concerns official conduct or a matter of public concern. Private plaintiffs generally need show only negligence, but they must prove actual malice to recover presumed or punitive damages on matters of public concern.
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…
…the press from the chilling effect of libel suits brought by public officials. The rule requires that a public official prove “actual malice
…the one here at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with ‘actual malice,’” as defined by New
…566 F. 2d 817, 832-833 (CA2 1977); cf. Hutchinson v. Proxmire , 443 U. S., at 120, n. 9 (questioning whether the existence of "actual malice," as an issue of fact, may properly be decided on summary judgment in a suit alleging libel of a public figure). [^maj-28]: In suits against a President's closest aides, discovery of this…
…(2) whether petitioner Hutchinson is either a “public figure” or a “public official,” thereby making applicable the “actual malice
Yes. Public figures cannot recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress or false-light invasion of privacy arising from expressive publications without showing actual malice. The standard prevents tort law from chilling protected speech about public figures.
Supporting sources
Deliberate alteration of a public figure's words satisfies actual malice only if the change produces a material difference in meaning. Trivial or non-substantive alterations do not meet the standard.
Supporting sources
States may permit presumed and punitive damages without actual malice when the defamatory speech does not involve a matter of public concern. A credit report about a private company's finances circulated to a limited audience is speech on a private matter.
Supporting sources