Actual Malice
One can often forgive ignorance and confusion, even the willful kind. But a reckless disregard for the truth and willful defamation becomes not only unforgivable, but actionable.
Volunteer Hoosier is a progressive Web log, advocating for our ideas. It is also an independent journal that tries to inform with factual news and to urge readers to join us in our efforts to spread the word that Floyd County and New Albany CAN and WILL be better each day, each week, each month, and each year.
There is always a tension between free debate and civil discourse. The boundaries can often become blurred. But an accusation of impropriety, ill will, or lack of vision fall far short of alleging criminality.
Recent recklessness on a slanderblog known to regular readers of this space has crossed that boundary. Although the site in question has developed a reputation for being consistently wrong in both its factual assertions and in its predictive role, allegations of criminality have now been made.
Most officeholder, and many activists, learn to live with the stones cast by their political enemies. But even politicians have a limited right to seek damages when they are defamed with "actual malice." Lawyers will tell you that the term "actual malice" has little or nothing to do with "honest hatred" or any other lay term. It is a legal term of art, with very specific meaning. Those who publish news or commentary, whether it is their own opinions or the opinions of others, are not protected from the consequences of disseminating slander and libel if they know it to be false or show a reckless disregard for the truth.
Holds true for blogs. In a different world, politicians might have to surrender their rights to be free from false accusations. In a different world, maybe "blogs" could be exempt from the standard, and thus free to publish accusations of any stripe.
But when a person uses legal terms to accuse, they had better get them right.
Let's say Politician C has an affair. Though that might be distasteful and a blot on the character of the politician, it doesn't regularly rise to the level of a crime. To then accuse C of rape, simply for political advantage, would be actionable. Truth might be a defense, but we already know it was an affair, not rape. The slanderer would be liable for damages as proved.
If the rape charge damages the reputation of C, there is no "get out of jail" card simply because C is a politician. Nor because the slanderer uses a Web log to make the accusation.
Volunteer Hoosier is a progressive Web log, advocating for our ideas. It is also an independent journal that tries to inform with factual news and to urge readers to join us in our efforts to spread the word that Floyd County and New Albany CAN and WILL be better each day, each week, each month, and each year.
There is always a tension between free debate and civil discourse. The boundaries can often become blurred. But an accusation of impropriety, ill will, or lack of vision fall far short of alleging criminality.
Recent recklessness on a slanderblog known to regular readers of this space has crossed that boundary. Although the site in question has developed a reputation for being consistently wrong in both its factual assertions and in its predictive role, allegations of criminality have now been made.
Most officeholder, and many activists, learn to live with the stones cast by their political enemies. But even politicians have a limited right to seek damages when they are defamed with "actual malice." Lawyers will tell you that the term "actual malice" has little or nothing to do with "honest hatred" or any other lay term. It is a legal term of art, with very specific meaning. Those who publish news or commentary, whether it is their own opinions or the opinions of others, are not protected from the consequences of disseminating slander and libel if they know it to be false or show a reckless disregard for the truth.
Holds true for blogs. In a different world, politicians might have to surrender their rights to be free from false accusations. In a different world, maybe "blogs" could be exempt from the standard, and thus free to publish accusations of any stripe.
But when a person uses legal terms to accuse, they had better get them right.
Let's say Politician C has an affair. Though that might be distasteful and a blot on the character of the politician, it doesn't regularly rise to the level of a crime. To then accuse C of rape, simply for political advantage, would be actionable. Truth might be a defense, but we already know it was an affair, not rape. The slanderer would be liable for damages as proved.
If the rape charge damages the reputation of C, there is no "get out of jail" card simply because C is a politician. Nor because the slanderer uses a Web log to make the accusation.
posted by All4Word at 2:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home