Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim 0216
-- Fine points about the intent and recklessness of malice. --

Another way to view my point is that defamation doesn't include an intent element. Read the case, NYT v. Sullivan. In defamation, the definition of "actual malice" is knowing the statement is false, or repeating it with reckless disregard for the truthfulness. The act does not need to involve ill will.

136 posted on 10/22/2016 1:40:21 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt
If the defense is Constitutional, then malice must be proven.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254

142 posted on 10/22/2016 2:55:29 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson