Talk:United States defamation law

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law B‑class Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Many statements in the top section are copied word for word from (or to) sections below. See the second paragraph at top vs. text throughout "Defamation Law in Modern Practice". Needs to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.45.91 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This needs cleaning up so badly[edit]

"they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the media outlet in question knew the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel." This sentence does not make sense. Either you must intend the falsity, or you must be reckless with respect to it, which encompasses the scenario where you intend the falsity. Additionally, either the recklessness or intent standard with respect to the falsity is already inconsistent with strict liability, so saying the Court later barred strict liability also does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.52.73 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I understand the statements to be saying is as follows: Let's say that I publish a defamatory statement about someone in a newspaper that I got from a source with a reputation for telling lies and make no effort to verify this source's claim with other sources. That would liquify as reckless disregard for the truth even though I was not intentionally trying to defame the person because I was making no effort to determine if it really was true or not. Now that is different then if I published the statement even though I have evidence that proves the statement to be false. Under some state libel laws and state and federal court precedents, I could be prosecuted for the former in some cases even though I did not intentionally defame anyone while in other cases it would not be prosecutable, such as against a politician, which requires proof of actual malice, as I understand the current state of the law. In the case of strict liability, they litigant/prosecutor does not need to prove I knew the statement was false or made no effort to verify whether it was false or not but simply that it actuality is false and I published it. I believe it was the case in some states that this sort of strict liability once existed but through various supreme court rulings has been bared. That means that the litigant/prosecutor must prove either you knew the statement was false, made little effort to verify it's truth, or you showed no concern as to whether it was true or false when deciding to publish it or say it. If say the publisher/speaker thought it was true only to find out later it was false then they would not be guilty of reckless disregard for the truth even if they were not following the standard journalistic guideline in the U.S. of fact checking. The statement "Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel." would seem to be saying that my hypothetical false statement would not be legally libel, If I published it under the belief it was true, as the absence of strict liability requires proof of slanderous intent not merely falsehood of the statement. Thus I don't think there is a inconsistency here though I will agree that the paragraph could be worded better.--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States defamation law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100216000503/http://www.osce.org:80/documents/rfm/2005/03/4361_en.pdf to http://www.osce.org/documents/rfm/2005/03/4361_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]