In United States law, actual malice is a legal requirement imposed upon public officials or public figures when they file suit for libel (defamatory printed communications). Compared to other individuals who are less well known to the general public, public officials and public figures are held to a higher standard for what they must prove before they may succeed in a defamation lawsuit.
This term was adopted by the Supreme Court in its landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, in which the Warren Court held that:
The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
Although defined within the context of a media defendant, the rule requiring proof of actual malice applies to all defendants including individuals. The standard can make it very difficult to prevail in a defamation case, even when allegations made against a public figure are unfair or are proved to be false.
Rather than being newly invented for the case, the term was a term from existing libel law. In many jurisdictions, proof of "actual malice" was required for punitive damages to be awarded or for other increased penalties. For example, Times v. Sullivan examined an existing Alabama statute that required proof of actual malice before an award of punitive damages would be permitted. Since proof of the writer's malicious intentions is hard to ascertain, proof that the writer knowingly published a falsehood was generally accepted as proof of malice (under the assumption that only a malicious person would knowingly publish a falsehood). In Sullivan, the Supreme Court adopted the term and gave it constitutional significance and defined it in terms of the proof that was usual.
Actual malice is different from common law malice, a term indicating spite or ill will.
Cette page est générée automatiquement et peut contenir des informations qui ne sont pas correctes, complètes, à jour ou pertinentes par rapport à votre recherche. Il en va de même pour toutes les autres pages de ce site. Veillez à vérifier les informations auprès des sources officielles de l'EPFL.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's freedom of speech protections limit the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, not only must they prove the normal elements of defamationpublication of a false defamatory statement to a third partythey must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false.
thumb|Le klapperstein : la « pierre des bavards », un exemple célèbre d'ancien supplice réservé aux personnes reconnues coupables de diffamation dans l'ancienne République de Mulhouse. thumb|La Vie Illustrée du 25 juillet 1902. Camille du Gast devant le tribunal La diffamation est un concept juridique désignant le fait de tenir des propos portant atteinte à l'honneur d'une personne physique ou morale. Dans certains pays, il ne peut y avoir de diffamation que si l'accusation s'appuie sur des contrevérités (ce n'est pas le cas en France, bien que l'exception de vérité puisse être utilisée comme un moyen de défense).
Le premier amendement de la Constitution des États-Unis d'Amérique fait partie des dix amendements ratifiés en 1791 et connus collectivement comme la Déclaration des Droits (Bill of Rights). Il interdit au Congrès des États-Unis d'adopter des lois limitant la liberté de religion et d'expression, la liberté de la presse ou le droit à « s'assembler pacifiquement ». La portée exacte du texte a été interprétée de différentes manières. Alors que l'amendement ne fait référence qu'au Congrès fédéral, on a considéré qu'il devait s'appliquer également aux législations des différents États.