On standards of malice

The law considers public figures and public officials to have greater recourse against the media when responding to false statements due to their public standing and ability to make public statements, and thus it holds them to a higher standard of evidence when bringing action against the media in court.

The standard of ‘actual malice’ was set by the United States Supreme Court in the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and requires that a plaintiff who is a public individual show that the press made false statements while either knowing the statements were false, or while acting with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsehood of the statements.

By contrast, the court gives greater protection to private individuals who lack the recourse of public figures or officials. As in the case Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ane, private individuals need not meet the “actual malice” standard when bringing libel cases.

The standard prior to New York Times applied strict liability in defamation cases when either truth or privilege did not exist as a defense. Individual states can change these standards by their own laws, but the private individual can usually overcome the privilege to defame by showing negligence in the media’s efforts to find whether a statement made was false.

In the modern environment where the ‘viral’ nature of some media can far outpace the ability of even major public figures to make recourse against it, it may one day be necessary to lower the standard for public figures or increase the standard of retractions for media found to be malicious or negligent, but extreme care need be taken in altering these standards due to their role in protecting media as a necessary institution in a democratic society.