§ 14-9 Defamation - Public Official or Public Figure Plaintiff

• Library: South Carolina Requests to Charge - Civil (SCBar) (2016 Ed.)

§ 14-9 Defamation - Public Official or Public Figure Plaintiff

In a defamation action brought by a "public official" ["public figure"], the plaintiff must prove the defamatory falsehood was made with constitutional "actual malice." To meet this standard, the plaintiff must show the defendant made the statement either with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth. Thus, the plaintiff must prove constitutional actual malice where he or she is a public official defamed in matters relating to his or her official conduct [public figure defamed in matters of public interest or concern].

Actual malice is a subjective standard which tests the defendant's good faith belief in the truth of his or her statements. To recover on a claim for defamation, the constitutional "actual malice" standard requires a "public official" to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defamatory statement relating to his official conduct was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. [To recover on a claim for defamation, the constitutional "actual malice" standard requires a "public figure" to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defamatory statement relating to matters of public interest or concern regarding the plaintiff's status or conduct as a public figure was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.]

The plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant realized his statement was false, in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication, or acted with a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. A "reckless disregard" for the truth, however, requires more than a departure from reasonably prudent conduct. There must be sufficient evidence to conclude either the defendant made the statements with a high degree of awareness of probable falsity or that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. To establish recklessness, there must be an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers. Mere negligence is insufficient to prove "actual malice."

Therefore, a "public official" is prohibited from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct without clear and convincing proof the statement was made with "actual malice"-that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless...