4 ms·

Thanks for your clarifications. > (2) If we're talking about the "actual malice" standard, then the standard is recklessness, not negligence. My understanding

Thanks for your clarifications. > (2) If we're talking about the "actual malice" standard, then the standard is recklessness, not negligence. My understanding is that "actual malice" only applies to public figures. Not private figures? EDIT: I should note that I'm working off of roughly high-school journalism + high school law levels of analysis here. I recognize I'm no expert in this subject, but we were forced to study this topic in my Journalism class before we were allowed to publish the school newspaper. I can believe it if my teacher was being extra-conservative with regards to the subjects we were allowed to cover.

tptacek 4y ago
Jones lawyers attempted to claim that the Sandy Hook parents were in fact public figures (again, this is all mooted by Jones eventual default of the defamation cases themselves; the conduct standards we're talking about apply pretty much entirely to the question of whether you're culpable in the first place, not what the damages are.)
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Gotcha. I haven't followed the full details of this case specifically. And it seems like there's multiple different cases of defamation vs Alex Jones for Sandy Hook... and my own memories could be getting mixed up between them. Good to discuss these various details in any case. Reckless vs negligence (and other such details) are very important to understand the case.