Celebrities, Public Figures, and Limited Purpose Public Figures have to prove more than you or I when suing for defamation.
You and I just have to prove that it is damaging and false.
Celebrities have to prove that it is damaging, false and not a false opinion, state of mind when the statements were made, and that the false statement was made with actual malice.
Actual malice is knowing for a fact, not just thinking or doubting, that something you say is absolutely untrue.
Here is information and a definition:
Celebrities, politicians, high-ranking or powerful government officials, and others with power in society are generally considered public figures/officials and are required to prove actual malice. Unlike these well-known and powerful individuals, your shy neighbor is likely to be a private figure who is only required to prove negligence if you publish something defamatory about her.
It should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant's actual state of mind at the time of publication. Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn't like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.
Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence
^The source link^
So as you can see, it is nearly impossible for a celebrity in the United States to sue for defamation and win. That is why many celebrities sue tabloids outside of the U.S. but never sue for the same false statements printed inside the U.S.
Even if Courtney Love could prove to the point of fact that she was in no way involved in the murder of Kurt Cobain, which would be extremely hard to do... she would still have no case, because it is nearly impossible to prove that these lies (or truths, because none of us REALLY know what happened) were stated with actual malice.
In the U.S. you can say almost anything you want about a celebrity and they cannot successfully sue you. They can send cease and desist letters, they can threaten to sue, but they won't be able to win a case against you.
"Some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again." -- C.S.Lewis
reply
share
arkraider85
9 years ago
Celebrities, Public Figures, and Limited Purpose Public Figures have to prove more than you or I when suing for defamation.
You and I just have to prove that it is damaging and false.
Celebrities have to prove that it is damaging, false and not a false opinion, state of mind when the statements were made, and that the false statement was made with actual malice.
Actual malice is knowing for a fact, not just thinking or doubting, that something you say is absolutely untrue.
Here is information and a definition:
Celebrities, politicians, high-ranking or powerful government officials, and others with power in society are generally considered public figures/officials and are required to prove actual malice. Unlike these well-known and powerful individuals, your shy neighbor is likely to be a private figure who is only required to prove negligence if you publish something defamatory about her.
It should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant's actual state of mind at the time of publication. Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn't like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.
Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence
^The source link^
So as you can see, it is nearly impossible for a celebrity in the United States to sue for defamation and win. That is why many celebrities sue tabloids outside of the U.S. but never sue for the same false statements printed inside the U.S.
Even if Courtney Love could prove to the point of fact that she was in no way involved in the murder of Kurt Cobain, which would be extremely hard to do... she would still have no case, because it is nearly impossible to prove that these lies (or truths, because none of us REALLY know what happened) were stated with actual malice.
In the U.S. you can say almost anything you want about a celebrity and they cannot successfully sue you. They can send cease and desist letters, they can threaten to sue, but they won't be able to win a case against you.
Excellent post and excellent points. I'll also point out that Grant has never come out and directly said that Love killed Cobain (or had him killed or whatever), he's always danced around it and said everything just short of accusing her. If he really wanted her to sue him so bad, as he says, then he'd issue an official, on-the-record statement saying "Kurt Cobain was murdered by Courtney Love." That'd at least be a start.
You're either a troll or just an idiot with the reading comprehension skills of a cockroach.
Can't it be both?
reply
share