4 ms·
Most likely not. There are two parts of US case law that would be at issue here, but the key is actual malice [1]. The defendants here believed the claims they
by rafram 3y ago
Most likely not. There are two parts of US case law that would be at issue here, but the key is actual malice [1]. The defendants here believed the claims they were repeating, even if they themselves hadn't seen the evidence. That isn't defamation.
[1] https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/07/is-accurately-repeating-a-defamatory-all/ https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/07/is-accurately-repeating...
- f33d5173 3y ago"actual malice" means either they knew it was untrue or they published it with reckless disregard for the truth. That would be the test he would attempt to prove they failed.
- mminer237 3y agoActual malice (which, reckless disregard isn't all that hard to get) it's only required if a person is a public figure. For most people, you only have to show negligence.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]