Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (1908)	5/8/2005 9:26:14 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224680

You're wrong. Again. As usual. This is MN. Just the girst good hit from google. abbottlaw.com II. DEFENSES TO DEFAMATION CLAIMS # A. Truth. # B. The First Amendment # 1. Public Officials/Public Figures: Actual Malice required. ........................................................... 1. Public Officials/Public Figures: Actual Malice must be proven. The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff. Instead of showing objectively that a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This allows the defendant to prove its good faith intent and efforts as a defense.