
	Where results make sense

Topic: Actual malice

In the News (Sat 10 Jan 09)

John Travolta

Kevin Pietersen

Costa Rica

Larry Flynt

Brad Pitt

Jennifer Garner

Boston College

Steve Ballmer

Rod Blagojevich

Phil Schiller

	Actual malice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		In many jurisdictions proof of "actual malice" was required in order for punitive damages to be awarded, or for other increased penalties.
		Since proof of the writer's malicious intentions is hard to provide, proof that the writer knowingly published a falsehood was generally accepted as proof of malice, under the assumption that only a malicious person would knowingly publish a falsehood.
		Actual malice is different from common law malice which indicates spite or ill-will.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Actual_malice (173 words)

	New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
		Many people have seen the term actual malice as puzzling, since the standard spelled out in the decision refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation, not to malicious intent.
		In many jurisdictions, including Alabama (where the case arose), proof of "actual malice" was required in order for punitive damages to be awarded, or for other increased penalties.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/New_York_Times_v._Sullivan (967 words)

	[No title]
		Applying this rule to the issue of actual malice, there is no need for trial unless there is sufficient "evidence in the record [to] support a reasonable jury finding that the plaintiff has shown malice by clear and convincing evidence...." Id. at 255-56.
		"Actual malice" is defined as acting with "knowledge that [the defamatory material] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." New York Times, 376 U.S. at 280; Masson, 501 U.S. at 510.
		The actual malice test is an inquiry into a defendant's subjective state of mind as to the truth or falsity of his or her publication.
	www.nyls.edu /docs/Sprague11.txt (4798 words)

	Modrall Sperling :: Libel and Slander
		Actual malice means publishing a statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether not it was false.
		As stated above, actual malice means that a statement was made with knowledge that it was false, or with a reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
		A corollary to this point is that actual malice is not synonymous with a lack of balance or neutrality in the gathering, reporting or editing of news.
	www.modrall.com /articles/article_12.html (5920 words)

	[No title]
		A showing of actual malice is apparently a prerequisite to recovery of punitive damages, and the defendant may in any event forestall a punitive award by a retraction meeting the statutory requirements.
		While [728] Alabama law apparently requires proof of actual malice for an award of punitive damages, n24 where general damages are concerned malice** is "presumed." Such a presumption is inconsistent [*284] with the federal rule.
		If the constitutional standard is to be shaped by a concept of malice, the speaker takes the risk not only that the jury will inaccurately determine his state of mind but also that the jury will fail properly to apply the constitutional standard set by the elusive concept of malice.
	www.mtsu.edu /~lburriss/nyt_v_su (11937 words)

	New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
		While Alabama law apparently requires proof of actual malice for an award of punitive damages, [note 24] where general damages are concerned malice is "presumed." Such a presumption is inconsistent [284] with the federal rule.
		The trial court's error in failing to require any finding of actual malice for an award of general damages makes it unnecessary for us to consider the sufficiency under the federal standard of the instructions regarding actual malice that were given as to punitive damages.
		The requirement of proving actual malice or reckless disregard may, in the mind of the jury, add little to the requirement of proving falsity, a requirement which the Court recognizes not to be an adequate safeguard.
	www.bc.edu /bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html (12002 words)

	Southern Newspaper Publishers Association
		Instead, "actual malice" in the context of libel law means that false information is published with knowledge that it is false of with reckless disregard of whether it is true or not.
		Actual malice requires a "reckless disregard for the truth" for a libel verdict to stand against a public figure, the court concluded, and SI's failures simply did not rise to that level.
		Sports Illustrated case is that the actual malice standard remains viable and rightfully difficult for a public-figure plaintiff to surpass, but another is that the failure to follow leads or ask the "right" questions, as much as any other failure on the part of a reporter, can form the basis for an actual malice argument.
	www.snpa.org /index.cfm?fuseaction=CircuitLegalIssues.actualmalice (2211 words)

	Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986)
		It was further held that such actual malice must be shown with "convincing clarity." Respondents, a nonprofit corporation described as a "citizen's lobby" and its founder, filed a libel action in Federal District Court against petitioners, alleging that certain statements in a magazine published by petitioners were false and derogatory.
		Opposing the motion, respondents claimed that an issue of actual malice was presented because the author had relied on patently unreliable sources in preparing the articles.
		The only evidence of malice produced by the plaintiff is the same testimony of witness A, who is duly impeached by the defendant for the prior perjury [***49] conviction.
	www.nyls.edu /cmc/uscases/anderson.htm (7496 words)

	Libel Law, Independent Appellate Review, New York Times Sullivan Bose Consumers Union Cornell Law Review, Gary Paranzino
		To recover a libel judgment for a false and defamatory statement, a public figure plaintiff must prove that the publisher made the statement with actual malice, i.e., 'with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' [fn23] Both formulations, actual knowledge and reckless disregard, are subjective standards.
		Justice White, dissenting separately, [fn75] agreed with Justice Rehnquist that the actual knowledge component of the Sullivan actual malice test was a question of historical fact and therefore should be reviewed under rule 52(a), but concluded that the reckless disregard component of Sullivan was not a question of historical fact.
		He described the actual malice determination as 'a determination as to the actual subjective state of mind of a particular person at a particular time.' 104 S. Ct. at 1969 n.1 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
	paranzino.com /libel.html (10404 words)

	Converted WP file fsj
		Actual malice exists when the defendant publishes a defamatory statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80; see Masson v.
		Specifically, I agree that the “actual malice” standard should be applied to reports on matters of public concern, and that clear and convincing evidence should be required for a defamation recovery on a matter of public concern.
		In such cases, appellate courts must independently review trial court determinations of actual malice to ensure that the correct standard was applied--that plaintiffs proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants acted with actual malice in publishing falsehood with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for whether it was false.
	www.in.gov /judiciary/opinions/previous/archive/06239901.fsj.html (14977 words)

	[No title]
		"Actual malice" was defined as a showing that the publisher knew the defamatory statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its probable falsity.
		Nevertheless, the court held Dr. Green was a public official (thus mandating the New York Times actual malice standard) because the public had an independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the person who held the specific job at issue beyond the general public interest in the qualifications of all governmental employees.
		Thus, for example, plaintiff in a slander per se case did not need to show actual harm to his or her reputation; the jury could award substantial damages for loss to general reputation on the assumption that such loss naturally followed from the defamation.
	www.state.ak.us /courts/insciv/16.00.doc (2501 words)

	Actual Malice (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-01)
		In order to prove actual malice, the plaintiff must show that "the defendant entertained [or should have entertained] serious doubts as to the truth of his publication."
		Neither may it be inferred from the fact of defamatory publication alone, or from the mere fact that the accusations are of a serious nature.
		In short, reckless conduct amounting to actual malice 'is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing.' Rather, '"knowledge" or "reckless disregard" is a subjective matter, a question of state of mind, quite distinct from any question of objective reasonableness or prudence."'McNabb v.
	jcomm.uoregon.edu /~tgleason/j385/Amalice.htm (195 words)

	Intellectual Property Professional Information Center: Puerto Rico Criminal Libel Law Struck Down as Unconstitutional
		For public officials to recover damages, they must prove "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 actual malice standard is distinct from common law malice, which refers to spite or ill will.
		The actual malice standard, and other constitutional protections of criticisms of public officials, was extended to the criminal libel context in Garrison v.
		In addition to the actual malice standard, Garrison requires that truth must be a complete defense in a criminal libel prosecution for a statement concerning a public official, the court said.
	ipcenter.bna.com /pic2/ip.nsf/id/BNAP-5JBMPL?OpenDocument (975 words)

	111 Wn.2d 195, MARGOLES v. HUBBART
		In this context, "actual malice" means that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
		The actual malice standard is subjective in the sense that it focuses on the media defendant's knowledge that the defendant's statement is false or made with reckless disregard of its falsity.
		Accordingly, actual malice was not clearly and convincingly established on the basis of statements as to the unauthorized use of the port vehicle.
	www.mrsc.org /mc/wacourts/supreme/111wn2d/111wn2d0195.htm (6824 words)

	Legal Definition of 'Malice, Actual'
		Actual malice involves making a statement with "knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity." Masson, 501 U.S. at 511.
		The First Amendment requires a plaintiff who is a public figure to demonstrate actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
		"The question whether the evidence in the record in a defamation case is sufficient to support a finding of actual malice is a question of law." Milkovich v.
	www.lectlaw.com /def2/m006.htm (235 words)

	Intellectual Property Professional Information Center: Directed Verdict for Newspaper Thrown Out in S.C. Defamation Case
		The court found that the record supported the jury's finding of actual malice, in light of the newspaper's failure to investigate in the face of doubts as to the veracity of the grandmother's accusations.
		The guardian is entitled to seek both actual and punitive damages in a subsequent phase of the trial, the court concluded.
		Despite her private figure status, the court found that Erickson could not benefit from the common law presumptions that the defendant acted with common law malice, that the plaintiff suffered general damages, and that the libelous statement is false.
	ipcenter.bna.com /pic2/ip.nsf/id/BNAP-6P3KUR?OpenDocument (1374 words)

	THOMSON NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING, INC., d/b/a Northwest Arkansas...
		He asked for compensation for actual damages to his emotional well-being, personal dignity, disruption of relationships with friends and family, damage to business reputation, standing in the community, and public image, and also requested that punitive damages be awarded.
		Appellee, as a public figure, had the additional burden of proving that such false statements were made with actual malice, and he has failed to meet this burden.
		Coody seems to argue that both the hiring of the investigator and then not waiting for his report is evidence of actual malice.
	courts.state.ar.us /opinions/old/94-908A.html (2828 words)

	MLMSurvivor.com
		As a preliminary matter, Amway contends PandG and Dinsmore are judicially estopped from arguing that Amway must prove actual malice because this position is diametrically opposed to their successful argument in the Texas case that actual malice is not required of a public figure to recover for injury to reputation when commercial speech is involved.
		The differences between the actual malice issue in the two cases are too significant to call the two positions inconsistent.
		With respect to the substance of PandG and Dinsmore's actual malice defense, Amway contends it has come forward with sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether PandG and Dinsmore knew the pyramid scheme and RICO allegations were false.
	www.mlmsurvivor.com /amway_v_pg_dismissed7.htm (1990 words)

	Libel Summary
		This is not what actual malice is. Actual malice (also called “constitutional malice”) is knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.
		Actual Malice Defined: Because the actual malice test has two parts — knowing falsehood and recklessness — and because recklessness is easier to prove, the actual malice test really boils down to a recklessness test.
		Compensatory Damages: These include actual damages, which are meant to compensate plaintiffs for harm done to their reputations, mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering, etc., and special damages, which are meant to compensate plaintiffs for their direct financial losses, lost income, medical expenses, etc.
	academic.mu.edu /uglande/comm165/LibelSummary.htm (2558 words)

	FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code
		[376 U.S. with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
		There was testimony that the persons handling the advertisement saw nothing in it that would render it unacceptable under the Times' policy of rejecting advertisements containing "attacks of a personal character"; 27 their failure to reject it on this ground was not unreasonable.
		[ Footnote 2 ] The requirement of proving actual malice or reckless disregard may, in the mind of the jury, add little to the requirement of proving falsity, a requirement which the Court recognizes not to be an adequate safeguard.
	caselaw.lp.findlaw.com /scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254 (13023 words)

	Actual Malice — www.greenwood.com
		Under common law the burden of proving actual malice could be met by a simple showing of ill will or hatred, a standard far less protective of the press than the Times rule, the benefits of which, contends the author, far outweigh its shortcomings.
		He argues that, contrary to much of the scholarly criticism and opinions expressed in the popular press, the actual malice rule is working and should be retained as an integral feature of libel law.
		He explores how the modern definition of actual malice relates to definitions accepted before 1964 and analyzes how the appellate courts have defined and applied the rule since the 1964 decision.
	www.greenwood.com /catalog/C3246.aspx (452 words)

	Operation Clambake Present: Scientology Court Files
		A public figure suing for libel must prove, as one of the essential elements of the claim, that the defendant published the material with actual malice, i.e., actual knowledge of its falsity or with serious subjective doubts as to its truth.
		Because sharp disagreement is essential to robust debate about important issues, "[a]ctual malice under the New York Times standard should not be confused with the concept of malice as an evil intent or a motive arising from spite or ill will." Masson v.
		As noted, malice in the sense of hatred or ill-will is often indicative of lack of the actual malice required under New York Times, and therefore would tend to undermine, not support, plaintiff's case.
	www.xenu.net /archive/CourtFiles/occf15.html (3173 words)

	A Threat That Wastes No Space -- Chilling Effects Clearinghouse (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-01)
		Answer: Malice is often defined as, "the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act." It is the conscious, intentional wrongdoing with the intent of doing harm to do the victim.
		"Actual malice" is a legal term of art that is mainly relevant to defamaton claims.
		"Actual Malice" is found to be present when a false statement is published with either a) actual knowledge of its falsity or b) reckless disregard for its falsity-- a "should have known" standard.
	www.chillingeffects.org /protest/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1997 (775 words)

	1998a/980305/97-400
		Appellants merely contend that Ridlehoover knew the implication of the article was false because she had reported in 1983 that Southall had said that he was no longer at the Ensco plant at the time that the health department officials had arrived.
		Appellants argue that actual malice is apparent from Ridlehoover's failure toread the official court file prior to publishing the article in order to verify whether Southall was a party at the time of the suit's disposition.
		Footnote: 2 We note Appellants' argument that malice is shown by the fact that, when asked about the existence of this "clip file," the Newspaper responded that there was no such file.
	courts.state.ar.us /opinions/1998a/980305/97-400.html (4234 words)

	Defamation and the First Amendment
		9-0; The Court ruled that the First and Fourteenth Amendments require a public official suing for defamation to prove that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with 'actual malice — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
		The judge instructed the jury that falsity and malice are presumed.
		Sullivan standard of actual malice was inapplicable to defamation plaintiffs who were not public officials.
	www.freedomforum.org /packages/first/defamationandfirstamendment/casesummaries.htm (2085 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)