Malicious Lies: Defamation of Public Figures

Defamation is the act of communicating a false statement to a third party that causes harm to one's reputation. It consists of slander (spoken falsehoods) and libel (written falsehoods). Check out my previous blog post for a general summary of defamation law in Florida.

It is common for media outlets to report on public figures, sometimes publishing falsehoods that injure their reputations. Prior to 1964, it was common for public figures to recover damages against media outlets for these defamatory statements. However, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution restricts the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation. Specifically, the Sullivan Court required that a public official (in this case, a city commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama) prove not only that the alleged defamer made a false statement to a third party about the official, but also that the statement was made with actual malice.

The rationale for the actual malice standard is that it protects the media when it reports on public figures but makes erroneous but honest statements. The Sullivan holding recognizes that it is often difficult for a news outlet to investigate the truth of every detail of every story prior to publication. Given these difficulties, liability for defamation claims disincentivized the media from reporting on the conduct of public officials that could be of great public importance. Therefore, the application of a higher standard of liability for defamation of public officials, "actual malice", was necessary to promote free speech.

The Supreme court has steadily increased restrictions on defamation claims since Sullivan. In Curtis Publishing Co. v Butts, the Supreme court expanded the class of people to whom the "actual malice" standard applied from public officials to public figures (and held that a football coach was a public figure because he was prominent in the public eye). In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Supreme Court held that states were free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the court held that, if the state standard was lower than actual malice, only actual damages may be awarded.

Actual Malice

Let's take a look at what "actual malice" means and what kind of evidence is needed for a public figure to win a defamation claim. According to Sullivan, a statement is made with actual malice when it is uttered or published "with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false." When competent evidence shows that a defendant had serious doubts about the truth of a statement but published the statement anyway, there is reckless disregard for the truth. The bottom line is that when someone says or publishes a statement they know or strongly suspect to be false about someone to a third party, there is actual malice. And when there is actual malice, a public figure may recover for defamation (Incidentally, under Florida law, proving actual malice also entitles a defamation plaintiff to special damages).

General vs. Limited-Purpose Public Figures

Case law since Sullivan has drawn a distinction between general and limited-purpose public figures. In Gertz, the Court held that a private person becomes a limited-purpose public figure when he injects himself into a public controversy (by holding a press conference, etc.). When an individual thrusts himself into the spotlight, the court held, he should expect to be the subject of media scrutiny.

Therefore, according to Gertz, defamatory speech about any conduct by a general-purpose public figure (like Oprah Winfrey) would be subject to the actual malice standard. Defamatory speech concerning someone who is only known to the public because of a single incident (like Richard Reid, who tried to detonate a shoe bomb on a flight in 2001) would only have to meet the actual malice standard if it addressed the thing that the person is known for (in this case, shoe-bombing). Defamatory speech concerning anything else about the limited-purpose figure would be subject to liability for negligence.

Defamation

If you have been the victim of defamatory speech, you may have a claim for damages against the defamer.

If you have been harmed by defamatory lies, contact Florida defamation attorney John Clarke for a free consultation at (954) 556-8952.