Also known as: serious doubt as to the truth · reckless disregard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A subjective mental state in which a publisher entertains serious doubts about the accuracy of a statement before publishing it. This state satisfies the reckless-disregard prong of actual malice in defamation actions brought by public officials or public figures.
Scott Summers, a newspaper editor, received an anonymous tip accusing a city official of bribery. Internal memos already contradicted the tip, yet Summers published without further checks. The official proved Summers entertained serious doubts about the story's truth.
Serena Soto, a prominent local activist, sued a blogger who accused her of misusing campaign funds. The blogger had relied on an unverified social-media post and published without contacting Soto or checking public records. Soto proved the blogger entertained serious doubts about the accusation's truth, satisfying the actual-malice requirement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sean Steele, a candidate for judicial office, told voters that his opponent had been disciplined for ethics violations. Steele knew the statement rested on a dismissed complaint he had not verified. The disciplinary board found he made the statement with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.
Sylvia Santos published an article accusing a city council member of taking bribes. She based the story on a single anonymous tip and published despite internal notes questioning the tip's reliability. The council member proved Santos entertained serious doubts about the story's truth.
Steven Silva, a police chief, sued a newspaper that reported he had fabricated evidence in a high-profile case. The paper had received contradictory information from its own files yet published anyway. Silva established that the editors entertained serious doubts about the report's accuracy.
Sebastian Santos, an online columnist, accused a school-board member of embezzlement based on an unverified email. Notes in the file already flagged the email as unreliable, yet Santos published without further inquiry. The board member proved Santos entertained serious doubts about the accusation's truth.
Evidence that the publisher received contradictory information, ignored obvious red flags in sources, or failed to verify readily available facts can support a finding that the publisher entertained serious doubts. The standard is subjective and focuses on the publisher's state of mind at the time of publication.
No. Mere failure to investigate is not enough. The plaintiff must show the publisher actually entertained serious doubts or deliberately avoided the truth despite awareness of probable falsity.
Public figures must prove the defendant published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, which includes entertaining serious doubts about the statement's accuracy. The same constitutional standard that protects criticism of public officials extends to public figures.
…conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice"that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. An oft-cited statement of a like rule, which has been adopted by a number of state courts, is found in the Kansas case of Coleman v. MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711,…