A magazine published an article about a local businessperson. The article stated that the individual had engaged in fraudulent financial practices, a claim that was factually inaccurate. The businessperson is a public figure. They sued the magazine for defamation, alleging the false statements harmed their reputation. Under what circumstances, if any, will the magazine be held liable for defamation?
If the magazine relied on an anonymous source, despite the source being deemed credible at the time by the magazine.
If the businessperson can prove the article harmed their reputation, if the magazine's intent or state of mind is not a factor.
If the magazine failed to verify the facts in the article before publication.
If the magazine published the article with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.
The businessperson is a public figure, which heightens the burden of proof in defamation cases due to constitutional considerations under the First Amendment. For the plaintiff to prevail, they must show the magazine acted with actual malice—that is, with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. This protects free speech and press rights for matters of public concern while balancing the reputation interests of public figures. Other answers are incorrect because negligence alone is insufficient for public figure defamation claims, and truth is always a defense to defamation. Additionally, the absence of actual malice cannot be remedied by showing only harm to reputation or reliance on a source deemed credible.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does *actual malice* mean in the context of defamation law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why do public figures have a higher burden of proof in defamation cases?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What defenses can a magazine use against a defamation claim?