“Could Your Words Cost You Everything? The Shocking Truth About Defaming Public Figures Revealed!”
The Supreme Court in Sullivan crafted an actual malice standard when dealing with statements regarding public officials in an effort to protect the First Amendment freedom of speech, and curb suppression of political dissent or criticism. The actual malice prong is satisfied when a Plaintiff establishes that a statement is made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it is true or not.
There are certain statements that are considered defamatory per se (intrinsically). Examples include false criminal accusations, claims that an individual has a communicable disease, adultery allegations, or professional misconduct. In my estimation, Stephanopoulos made the egregious error by stating that Donald Trump committed rape (slander per se). I don’t use the term “egregious” lightly. It was factually ascertainable that President Trump was not liable for committing rape as evidenced by the jury verdict in the matter of E. Jean Carroll. President Donald Trump was found civilly liable for sexual abuse. Disregard for the actual verdict by Stephanopoulos could easily satisfy Sullivan’s actual malice standard. What greatly confounds matters is that a U.S. District Court judge dismissed Trump’s defamation claims against E. Jean Carroll, because digital penetration in “modern common parlance” may well be considered rape. Nevertheless, producers at ABC warned Stephanopoulos not to use the word rape, creating a big problem for the network insofar as actual malice is concerned.
Post Comment