Also known as: qualified privileges · conditional privilege
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A conditional privilege that protects a person from liability for publishing defamatory matter when the publication serves an important interest of the publisher, the recipient, or the public. The privilege is lost if the publisher abuses it by acting with malice, recklessness, or by publishing to an excessive audience.
Quinley Quincy, a manager at Quest Pharmaceuticals, learned that a subordinate had falsified lab reports. Quincy sent an email accusing the subordinate of fraud to every employee in the company, including those with no role in quality control. The subordinate sued for defamation. The court held that the qualified privilege for protecting company interests was abused by the excessive publication.
Quade Quincy, a partner at Quest Capital, received a request for a reference about a departing analyst. Quincy wrote that the analyst had stolen client data, knowing the claim was false and motivated by personal dislike. The analyst sued for defamation after the letter reached a rival firm. The court found the qualified privilege for employment references was forfeited by malice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Quinley Quincy, a store manager, suspected an employee of theft and sent a memo to all staff and vendors describing the suspected conduct. The employee sued for defamation. The court held the qualified privilege was abused by publication to persons lacking a legitimate interest in the matter.
Quincy Quigley, a supervisor, received a reference request from a prospective employer and instead mailed the response to an unrelated company with no hiring interest. The former employee sued for defamation. The court found the qualified privilege lost because publication reached a person outside the protected group.
Quest Capital issued a credit report falsely stating that Greenmoss Builders was insolvent. The report reached only a small group of subscribers. The court held that the qualified privilege for credit reporting applied because the speech concerned a private matter and required proof of actual malice for liability.
The New York Times published an advertisement criticizing a police commissioner for misconduct. The commissioner sued for defamation. The court held that the qualified privilege for speech on public issues required the plaintiff to prove actual malice before recovering damages.
The privilege is lost if the defendant abuses it by acting with actual malice, reckless disregard for truth, or by publishing the statement to persons outside the protected group. Abuse also occurs through excessive publication beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect the interest at stake.
Supporting sources
No. A qualified privilege requires good faith. If the defendant acts primarily from malice or an improper purpose unrelated to the protected interest, the privilege is forfeited even if the statement concerns a matter of shared interest.
Supporting sources
The defendant must prove the existence of circumstances giving rise to the privilege. Once established, the plaintiff may still prevail by showing abuse through malice, recklessness, or excessive publication.
Supporting sources
…of whether it was false or not." Ante, at 279-280. The Court thus rules that the Constitution gives citizens and newspapers a "conditional privilege" immunizing nonmalicious misstatements of fact regarding the official conduct of a government officer. The impressive array of history and precedent marshaled by the Court, however,…