Record the actual-malice showing for a public official

Key facts

Human involvement

Yellow · Close supervision

How AI is used

From the pleading and the publication, record whether the file describes the plaintiff as a public official, whether the statement is described as relating to the plaintiff's official conduct, and what the file says about the publisher's knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether the statement was false. Do not decide that actual malice is proved or that it is irrelevant.

What the lawyer must review

The lawyer applies New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The Court held that the Constitution requires a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The Court applied that rule to the case and said the proof of actual malice lacked the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands. The Court did not say that malice is disregarded. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), quotes that Sullivan holding and then holds that the States may set a less demanding standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of a defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual, so long as they do not impose liability without fault. The lawyer decides whether the plaintiff is a public official and whether the speech relates to official conduct. State law supplies the remaining elements of the claim.

Written for / version

United States versionUS