Higher Burdens for Defamation: Public Officials and Figures
Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their minds about elected officials and other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit.
The Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech limits a public official’s ability to sue someone for defamation. When someone criticizes an official in a false and damaging way for something relating to their behavior in office, the official must prove the statement was made with “actual malice” and all the other defamation elements.
The U.S. Supreme Court defined “actual malice” in Hustler v. Falwell (1988). In that case, the Court held that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protected certain statements that would otherwise be defamatory.
This meant that public officials could only win a defamation suit when the statement was published with the actual intent to harm the public figure. Actual malice only occurs when the person making the statement knows it is not true or has a reckless disregard for whether it is true.
Other people in the public eye, such as celebrities, must also prove actual malice to succeed in a defamation claim.
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html
Malice?
Easy to prove!
Stuff....
Thomas said he wants the Supreme Court to change this... Maybe this lawsuit will get that far.
So, how does this work when the commie networks claim they merely reported on what Hillary, the DNC, FBI, CIA and AG told them. E.g., CNN didn't initiate the Trump Russian collusion story, they merely reported what Hillary, the DNC and other sources were saying.
Is it "malicious" when a news network reports fake news from a "2nd hand source" ?
I think Trump will find it difficult to sue CNN for defamation. If he loses his suit, it will embolden the TDS networks.