3 ms·
No, you have to prove that it was stated with intent of spreading false information about the person who was wronged. A reporter who genuinely believed that Vio
by KittenInABox 5y ago
No, you have to prove that it was stated with intent of spreading false information about the person who was wronged. A reporter who genuinely believed that Viola made those statements can't be judged as committing defamation.
- spoonjim 5y agoSo if I genuinely think you murdered a baby I can publish articles saying you did, with no legal consequence?
- colinmhayes 5y agoyes, if you can prove that you genuinely believe it.
- spoonjim 5y agoIn the US that standard is only applied to public figures. For a private figure, the speaker can commit defamation if they do not exert reasonable care to ensure that the statement is true.
- xadhominemx 5y agoNo, the burden is not “exert reasonable care that the statement is true” It’s much more relaxed: “cannot have acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement is true”
- xadhominemx 5y agoYes, that is the definition of defamation in the United States
- dragonwriter 5y ago> No, you have to prove that it was stated with intent of spreading false information about the person who was wronged. Even for public figures where the NY Times v. Sullivan “actual malice” standard applies, intentional/knowing falsity is not required; reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement is sufficient for actual malice. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
- KittenInABox 5y agoOK, let me add in your clarification. Thank you for educating me on the matter.