Defamation-public figure, private concern Forum

AJS30 · Post by **AJS30** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:17 pm

Does P still have to show malice or bc it's private just negligence?

Tanicius · Post by **Tanicius** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:20 pm

AJS30 wrote:Does P still have to show malice or bc it's private just negligence?

Pretty sure they have to show malice for any speech involving a public figure. Typically, the public figures sue people for private concerns not over the publication of the statement, but the invasion of privacy that enabled the state's publication.

Kiwi917 · Post by **Kiwi917** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:33 pm

Tanicius wrote:
AJS30 wrote:Does P still have to show malice or bc it's private just negligence?
Pretty sure they have to show malice for any speech involving a public figure. Typically, the public figures sue people for private concerns not over the publication of the statement, but the invasion of privacy that enabled the state's publication.

I agree - fairly sure they still have to show malice. It's also hard to show that something related to a public figure is not a matter of public concern, because newsworthiness is defined so broadly. There's very little that a public official or figure can do that isn't somehow of legitimate concern to the public.

bjsesq · Post by **bjsesq** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:40 pm

Damn near always actual malice for public figure. Do they test limited purpose public figure on the bar?

Georgia Avenue · Post by **Georgia Avenue** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:41 pm

Actual malice for public figures. Negligence for private figures but matter of public concern. Falsity for both.

Defamation-public figure, private concern Forum

Defamation-public figure, private concern

Re: Defamation-public figure, private concern

Re: Defamation-public figure, private concern

Re: Defamation-public figure, private concern

Re: Defamation-public figure, private concern

Register now to search topics and post comments!