Private figures--people who have not carved out a public role for themselves in some context--have more protection as they can bring defamation actions when a defamatory lie is uttered even negligently. This seems only fair and does not threaten basic democratic values.
Gertz v Welch considers three important questions: (1) whether the full protection of the "actual malice" standard should extend to comments about private persons, (2) if not, whether the Constitution might at least limit the sorts of damages a private individual might collect for statements made without actual malice, and (3) if the actual malice standard is not extended to private individuals, how the line should be drawn between "public figures" and "private figures." The Supreme Court concluded that Elmer Gertz, the plaintiff in the defamation action and a leading Chicago civil rights attorney, was not a public figure for constitutional purposes. Moreover, the Court said, as a private person, Gertz need only show that a defamatory falsehood was made negligently, not that it was made with actual malice. Finally--in what turned out to be a major victory for the media--, the Court ruled that in the absence of a showing of actual malice, private plaintiffs are limited by the First Amendment--at least with respect to comments about a matter of public concern-- to recovery only for actual damages, and not for punitive or presumed damages.
Question: What is defamation?
Answer: An attack by speech on the good reputation of a person or business entity. Speech that involves a public figure--such as a corporation--is only defamatory if it is false and said with actual malice. It also must be factual rather than an expression of an opinion. In the United States, because of our strong free speech protections, it is almost impossible to prove defamation of a public figure.
Question: What is the legal definition of defamation?
Answer: The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are: (1) A publication to one other than the person defamed; (2) of a false statement of fact; (3) which is understood as being of and concerning the plaintiff; and (4) which is understood in such a way as to tend to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
Question: How does the First Amendment to the Constitution affect defamation?
Answer: The free speech guarantees under the Constitution protect certain speech and commentary. The degree of protection generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule (from the case New York Times v. Sullivan), when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is one of public concern, the plaintiff must prove "malice" or "reckless disregard" on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection for the speech because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence.
Question: What is the difference between libel and slander?
Answer: Libel is a defamatory statement expressed in a fixed medium such as a writing, picture, sign or electronic broadcast. Slander is a defamatory statement expressed in a transitory form such as speech.
Question: What is libel?
Answer: Libel is a defamatory statement expressed in a fixed medium, usually writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. See What is the legal definition of defamation?
Question: What is disparagement?
Answer: As defined in Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999), disparagement is "A false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another's property, product, or business. To recover in tort for disparagement, the plaintiff must prove that the statement caused a third party to take some action resulting in specific pecuniary loss to the plaintiff."
Question: Does it make any difference if I am commenting on a product or company rather than a person?
Answer: Product disparagement law prohibits certain false claims about another's goods or services. While a defamatory statement harms the reputation and character of a person or corporation, a product disparaging statement harms the marketability of the goods being disparaged. Product disparagement is typically harder to prove.
