Definition of Actual Malice Rule

The Actual Malice Rule states that for a defamatory statement about a public official or public figure to be actionable, the prosecution must prove "actual malice". Actual malice means the offender made the defamatory statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not. It is a higher standard than mere gross or even extreme negligence.

Components of Actual Malice

Actual malice, also known as malice in fact or actual malice, exists when the offender makes the defamatory statement with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Reckless disregard requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the accused entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the publication. Malice in fact is a positive desire and intention to annoy and injure.

Application

The Actual Malice Rule primarily governs the prosecution of criminal libel cases concerning public figures. Public figures include public officials, celebrities, athletes, and others who have achieved some degree of reputation. Where the subject of the libelous article is a private individual, the actual malice rule does not apply. The rationale behind this rule is that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and sometimes includes vehement, caustic, and unpleasant sharp attacks on government and public officials. The doctrine resonates with the rule that privileged communications must be protective of public opinion. In contrast to absolute privileged communications where imputations are not actionable even if attended by actual malice, qualified privileged communications require proof of actual malice in order for a defamatory imputation to be held actionable.