Top Law Schools

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

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.

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.

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

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