Also known as:NYT privilege · Times privilege · actual malice standard · Sullivan privilege
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional principle requiring public officials and public figures to prove that a defamatory statement was made with actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth—to recover damages.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
5
Public Figure Charity Director Sues
Grace Lee, a nationally known disaster relief charity director, sues Civic Integrity Watch after it posts a report accusing her of diverting funds into a personal account. Lee must show that the writer knew the allegation was false or published it while entertaining serious doubts about its truth. Because Lee qualifies as a public figure, the court applies the heightened fault requirement and grants summary judgment when she offers only evidence of an honest but careless belief by the writer.
Credit Report on Private Company
Northstar Logistics sues Dun & Bradstreet after a credit report falsely states that the company filed for bankruptcy. The report concerns purely private commercial matters with no public controversy. The court holds that the actual malice standard does not apply and permits recovery on a showing of negligence alone.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.472 U.S. 749 (1985)
Broadcast of Union Official Statement
Nolan Nunez, a local union leader, sues television reporter St. Amant after the reporter airs an interview repeating false accusations that Nunez took bribes. Nunez shows only that the reporter failed to investigate the source's reliability. The court rules that mere failure to investigate does not establish reckless disregard and enters judgment for the reporter.
St. Amant v. Thompson390 U.S. 727 (1968)
Altered Quotation in Magazine Profile
Nia Nkosi, a public figure psychoanalyst, sues New Yorker Magazine after an article fabricates quotations that portray her as unethical. Nkosi proves the quotes were invented rather than merely edited for clarity. The court finds that deliberate alteration of a speaker's words can support a finding of actual malice when the changes create a materially false impression.
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.895 F.2d 1535 (9th Cir. 1989)
Newspaper Ignores Conflicting Evidence
Nikhil Narayan, a judicial candidate, sues Harte-Hanks Communications after a story accuses him of offering favors for confidential information. Internal notes show editors knew a key source had given inconsistent statements yet published without further verification. The court upholds a jury verdict for Narayan because conscious avoidance of contradictory facts satisfies the reckless disregard element.
Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton491 U.S. 657, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 105 L.Ed.2d 562
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What must a public figure prove to recover for defamation under the New York Times privilege?+
A public figure must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published the statement with actual malice. Actual malice exists when the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. Reckless disregard requires subjective awareness of probable falsity.
Supporting sources
Does mere failure to investigate establish reckless disregard?+
No. Failure to investigate, without more, does not satisfy the reckless disregard standard. The plaintiff must show that the defendant entertained serious doubts about the truth or deliberately avoided confirming facts that would have revealed falsity.
Supporting sources
When does the New York Times privilege apply to statements about private individuals?+
The privilege does not apply to private individuals on matters of purely private concern. States may impose liability without a showing of actual malice when the plaintiff is a private figure and the speech does not involve a public controversy.
Supporting sources
What evidence supports a finding of actual malice in a public figure case?+
Evidence that the publisher knew a key source had given inconsistent statements or relied on a document known to be retracted can support actual malice. Conscious avoidance of contradictory information that would have revealed falsity satisfies the reckless disregard element.
Supporting sources
472 U.S. 749 (1985)Constitutional Law
…that do not involve matters of public concern. The First Amendment does not require the application of the New YorkTimesactual malice standard in such cases. Dissenting opinions Dissenting — Justice Brennan The Court today holds that a private individual need not show actualmalice to recover presumed and punitive…