[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hmm that I don’t know. That would make it harder to win

Google says I'm wrong, unless Kyle is a public person(???).

History of Defamation and the First Amendment

In the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain defamatory statements were protected by the First Amendment. The case involved a newspaper article that said unflattering things about a public figure, a politician. The Court pointed to "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." The Court acknowledged that in public discussions -- especially about public figures like politicians -- mistakes can be made. If those mistakes are "honestly made," the Court said, they should be protected from defamation actions. The court made a rule that public officials could sue for statements made about their public conduct only if the statements were made with "actual malice."

"Actual malice" means that the person who made the statement knew it wasn't true, or didn't care whether it was true or not and was reckless with the truth -- for example, when someone has doubts about the truth of a statement but does not bother to check further before publishing it.

Later cases have built upon the New York Times rule, so that now the law balances the rules of defamation law with the interests of the First Amendment. The result is that whether defamation is actionable depends on what was said, who it was about, and whether it was a subject of public interest and thus protected by the First Amendment.

Private people who are defamed have more protection than public figures -- freedom of speech isn't as important when the statements don't involve an issue of public interest. A private person who is defamed can prevail without having to prove that the defamer acted with actual malice.