Court has used actual malice test to give news First Amendment protection Robert Welch, Inc.(1974) that actual malice is not required for recovery of compensatory damages, but is the standard for punitive damages. Actual malice not required for private figuresĬoncerning private figures, however, the Court ruled in Gertz v. The amount of proof must be “clear and convincing evidence,” and the standard applies to compensatory as well as to punitive damages. Under the actual malice standard, if the individual who sues is a public official or public figure, that individual bears the burden of proving that the media defendant acted with actual malice. It extended the application of the actual malice test to public figures, not just public officials, in Curtis Publishing Co.

Thompson (1968), the Court recognized the standard as a subjective one, requiring proof that the defendant actually had doubts about the truth or falsity of a story. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court elaborated on the actual malice test in the libel context. Public figures, officials bear burden of proving actual malice Douglas, thought the Court should go farther to protect criticism of public officials and debate about public affairs. Brennan Jr.’s use of the actual malice standard, which he derived from a Kansas Supreme Court ruling, Coleman v. The decision in Sullivan threw out a damage award against the New York Times, but only six of the nine justices fully agreed with Justice William J. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court has held that public officials cannot recover damages for libel without proving that a statement was made with actual malice - defined as “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Public officials cannot win libel cases without proof of actual maliceīeginning with the unanimous decision in New York Times Co.

(The New York Times advertisement that prompted a libel lawsuit by a city commissioner in Montgomery County who oversaw police, via National Archives, public domain)Īctual malice is the legal standard established by the Supreme Court for libel cases to determine when public officials or public figures may recover damages in lawsuits against the news media. Sullivan (1964) involving this advertisement alleging abuses by the Montgomery police. The standard came from the case New York Times Co. Actual malice is the legal standard established by the Supreme Court for libel cases to determine when public officials or public figures may recover damages in lawsuits against the news media.

Actual synonym