3 ms·
> Does defamation require the person to knowingly spread false information? IANAL but there are certain criteria that must be met from what I understand. Knowi
by gspencley 3y ago
> Does defamation require the person to knowingly spread false information?
IANAL but there are certain criteria that must be met from what I understand. Knowing the statements to be false is one of them, but then there is intent and motivation as well as actual damages.
The reason that intent matters is that I could say something like: "Jeff Bezos is the type of guy that murders cats for fun."
The above is an opinion that is using colourful language. However, it COULD be construed as a statement of fact. So if Jeff Bezos* wanted to sue me for defamation, he would have to make the case that I was making a statement of fact which I not only knew to be untrue, but that I also knew was likely to cause reputational harm that would lead to financial damages.
* - And I'm asking to put aside the fact that Bezos is a public figure which raises the bar even higher, since people are more likely to talk about public figures and thus it is more likely and reasonable to get the facts wrong, to share personal opinions in ways that could be confused as factual statements and it is much less likely to cause the individual damages since most reasonable people kind of "get" this.
- Hizonner 3y agoIn the US, you can get hit for defamation even of a public figure if you made the statement with "reckless disregard for its truth or falseness". You don't have to know for sure that it's false. Either knowingly lying or "reckless disregard" is "actual malice". Private citizens need to prove actual malice to collect punitive damages, but mere negligence is enough for compensatory damages. That's for knowledge about the statement itself; I'm not sure what you have to know or intend about how much damage you'll do. That's constitutional standards; there may be state-to-state variations that impose more conditions. On edit: corrected; even for a non-public figure, it needs to be negligently false, so having taken reasonable steps to verify it should immunize you. But of course this kid clearly did not do this.