Actual Malice Rule - Coursework Example

Actual Malice Rule The actual malice rule is one of the rules in the United s’ law required to influence the establishment of libel that is up against public officials or public figures. The actual malice rule is defined as “knowledge that the information was false. Either way it is defined as information was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Towards reckless disregard, there is no inclusion of mere neglect in respect to professional standards of checking facts. The statement’s truth must contain some actual doubt as stated by the publisher. The definition only applies in the United States, and it has applied to several cases such as the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. In this case, it was ruled that the officials need to provide prove to the actual malice to recover damages for libel (Hopkins 403). In the case, New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, the supreme court of the United States ruled that the existence of the common law of defamation guaranteed violation of free speech, which was under the constitution’s first amendment. The court further held that the right given to citizens of criticizing officials is of great importance in a democratic society in that it can only be accepted under the tolerance of speech that may be determined to contain false information. The solution that was identified was aimed at doing away with the presumptions of the common law of being false and malice. After doing away with the presumptions of the common law, the solution was also aimed at placing the onus on the plaintiff to give prove at the time when the defamatory statements are being stated that the defendant either knew that the information was false or reckless as to whether they were or not (Hopkins 523). On the other hand, it is really healthy to gain an understanding fact of the social and the political influence behind the decision made by the Supreme Court on the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, supra. The identified publication was an edited advertisement that was published in an appellant’s newspaper. The publication was entitled, “Heed Their Rising Voices". The publication seemed to aim at criticizing the widespread domination, which was in a continuous domination in the southern states in the year 1950 and the year 1960. The advertisement was supported by the prominent, important and well respected people like Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. It was evident that the advertisement had the role of communicating information, reciting the grievances, protesting the abuses and sought the financial support. One of the sponsors of the advertisement was Brennan J. "whose existence and objectives are matters of the highest public interest and concern." Another sponsor was Black J., who gave a description of the controversy at the stunning point of the suit in several terms (Kupferman 223). Many people in the United States have great efforts to cause or to effect to one of the critical and highly emotional issues in the country. These people include some of the public officials. The role is the continuation of segregating of state command races in the schools that are public and other places recognized as public. These all roles are carried out despite the fact that the acts are forbidden by the fourteenth amendment in the constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States creates a belief that this dispensation, regarded as “special”, to the media creates robustly and sometimes it creates an open debate on political problems. There must be sacrifice from the innocent individuals so that the best is achieved for the larger part of the country if it is not for an individual. It was evident that the sacrifice was not at all necessary despite the fact that Sullivan had the substantial protections. There should be no suppression of libel before it is published. The comments from the public issues, which are called fair comments, were subjected to total protection by the suit. This was done even if the media was held responsible for giving false statements of fact. There was great protection of the traditional libel law from reputation. The proof for negligence had to be available in the highway accidents were not considered as a must in the libel actions (Hopkins 323). The defamed parties in conjunction with the press had to lose out in respect to the new order given. The proof was available that the defamation had to be discarded. This was done through close investigation on the externals which included the falsity and the truth. The motives and the knowledge of the speaker never turned out to be the liabilities of the case. The media has not been at peace since the rule was ruled out. The abandoning of the rule, on the other hand, led to the introduction of the legal extravaganzas (Kupferman 453). But in the current times, the mental facts will always apply. This means that the plaintiffs have the choice of questioning the reporters and the editors only if they do so in written and oral questions concerning their innermost thoughts about the subject matter. At the end of the case, the time lost or the expenses incurred will never be compensated that is even if the plaintiff goes home empty handed. However the dollars of the media that were saved in damage judgments are expended in litigation for the cases that have been brought forward. But it is unfortunate or fortunate that the lawyers are always the winners for the media dollars. The problem with the actual malice rule is that it does not deter many defamation cases. The publication then necessarily needs conscious choices. It is obvious that the writer had the knowledge when the words defame. Several people can argue out that selection, and the interpretation of evidence provided works out as a mask for deliberate errors or works out for the reckless disregard, or so jury might or not find. Some of these people may include Ariel Sharon or William Westmoreland, who is always determined (Kupferman 130). There are several damage awards that are provided by the actual malice rule. The first one is that the actual malice rule blurs the line that is in between the civil and the criminal responsibilities. The punitive damages are called upon by the greater culpability of the press. It sometimes is conveniently disguised as larger compensatory awards (Wright 380). When the juries play catch up, the damage awards may also be increased only if the innocent plaintiffs who are left uncompensated by the actual malice rule. If proper level of deterrence is to be achieved, there must be the availability of frequent and low damage awards or additionally, there must be the availability of infrequent and high damage awards. The requirements of the actual malice rule cause prevention of jury from adopting the first approach. On the other hand, the actual malice rule cannot cause prevention of higher jury awards that are rendered more plausible by the proof of the actual malice. But the awards are the best fitfully controlled, and they are at great expense, by trial and appellate judges. The honest plaintiff is denied compensation for the real losses to reputation by the modern law. Additionally, this law denies the honest plaintiff a judicial declaration that the defendant’s statement as on false accusations. On the other hand, it may mean that the media may be subjected to fewer cases since these cases are far more expensive when defending them, and thus they threaten large verdicts. There is no reduction of the total burden to the press but there might be an increase of the fact (Wright 400). The discoveries that are aimed to the internal operations of the media or press should be halted. This should be done except if there is relevance of truth in the subject matter. The principles are then consistent as they happen to be with the first amendment in the constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and the press (Moore 231). The guarantees identified only pose prohibition to the special restrictions on the media. There is no need of immunizing the media from the ordinary principles of the civil responsibility. The adoption of the actual malice rule was done; there was a backdrop of organized resistance by the southern segregationists. This was done by the Supreme Court of the United States. The New York Times emerged the victim of the time due to the huge state court damage awards in the meritless case. It was evident that the actual malice rule was not a protective rule to the Times (Wright 460). It is always bad to believe in a certain rule that it does not protect you. It was then satisfactorily to state that the Times did not libel the Sullivan. On the other hand, when undoing the major errors of a certain group of state decisions, the Supreme Court had to introduce the systematic errors of its own which went far than the civil rights arena. With the facts against the actual malice rule, it is evident that the rule should either go or be changed. Works cited Hopkins, W. Wat. Actual malice: twenty-five years after Times v. Sullivan. New York: Praeger, 1989. Print Kupferman, Theodore R. Defamation--libel and slander. Westport, CT: Meckler, 1990. Print Moore, Roy L. Media law and ethics: a casebook. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, 2008. Print Wright, Robert G. Freedom of the Press A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution.. New York, N.Y.: ABC-CLIO, 2004. Print Read More