Reply #85: I'm not a lawyer, but there needn't be a *SCOTUS* case on it, right? [View All]

Also, do you REALLY mean to say that actual malice = knowledge of falsity? If so, then satire would count as malice. Wouldn't there also have to be (at least as a background assumption) that the speaker intended that the listener take the statement as true? The following seems to be along the lines of what I'm thinking (thank god for google):


http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/28-4/lib-factualm.html

"The U.S. Supreme Court created the actual malice standard in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan. In order to recover for libel, a public figure must prove that the defendant made a statement with knowl- edge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.

The problem with applying this standard in the context of satire is that a satirist knows and intends that he or she is making false statements of fact. It is the blurring of the line between the farcical and the factual that makes satire an effective form of criticism.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed satire of a public figure in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, but that case addressed a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, not libel. In Hustler, Rev. Jerry Falwell sued Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flynt for intentional infliction of emotional distress and libel for publishing an "ad parody," which claimed that Falwell preached while drunk and had sex with his own mother in an outhouse.

The jury ruled against Falwell on the libel claim because the parody could not reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts, but ruled for him on the emotional distress claim. Flynt appealed, and the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the emotional distress award, holding that Falwell could not avoid having to prove actual malice by suing for emotional distress."


EDIT: So my conclusion/question is: It seems to me that the definition of "actual malice" is flawed, no?