3 ms·
Harm is required in all defamation. Public figures additionally must prove “actual malice” on the part of the defendant, which is a term of art distinct from th
by akerl_ 4y ago
Harm is required in all defamation. Public figures additionally must prove “actual malice” on the part of the defendant, which is a term of art distinct from the common usage of “malice”
- ncallaway 4y ago> Harm is required in all defamation. Harm is required in _most_ defamation. Some claims are considered "defamation per se", in which they are considered automatically harmful. - Indications that a person was involved in criminal - Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious - Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct - Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/w...
- tptacek 4y agoPer se defamation establishes that harm has occurred whether or not it is specifically proved. I was going to well-actually the same comment you did, and instead bided my time to well-actually the predictable response. At any rate: per se defamation isn't at play in this case.
- akerl_ 4y agoMuch appreciated. I should have spelled this out more directly in my original comment, but this is what I meant about some kinds of harm being more obvious. Defamation per se exists largely to handle cases where harm occurred but it’s tough to point to a specific instance or assign it an easy dollar figure.