Defamation Laws In New York: Understanding Character Assault

Defamation of character in New York is a complex area of law, with varying standards and potential damages. The state is home to numerous media organisations, high-profile figures, and individuals from diverse backgrounds, so it's no surprise that New York's defamation laws are robust and often favour defendants. To prove defamation, one must differentiate between a statement of fact and opinion, as opinions are protected by the First Amendment. Defamation centres around false statements of fact, causing harm to an individual's reputation, exposing them to hatred, contempt, or inducing an unsavoury opinion in the community. New York also recognises several defences, including truth, opinion, and absolute privilege.

Explore related products

Law and Authors: A Legal Handbook for Writers

$15.41 $22.95

Fighting Slander: A Practical and Legal Guide to Stopping Defamation

$14.95 $14.95

Biblical Perspective on Slander, Defamation of Character, and Libel

$76.88

Slander and Defamation of Character: The Great Crimes of the Nineteenth Century

$7.08 $32.95

Character Assassination

$44.95

The Trial of Lieutenant O'Halloran, for Defamation of the Character of Lieutenant-Colonel Samuel Howe Showers

$29.95

False statements vs opinions

In New York, defamation is defined as a false statement published to third parties that exposes a person or entity to hatred, contempt, aversion, or induces an unsavory opinion in the minds of members of the community. The key distinction between false statements and opinions is that opinions are generally protected by the First Amendment and are not considered defamation, whereas false statements of fact are considered defamatory.

Opinions are inherently subjective and based on an individual's beliefs or values, whereas false statements of fact are objectively untrue and can be proven false. For example, stating that "I believe Person X is a terrible singer" is an opinion, whereas stating that "Person X robbed a bank" is a false statement of fact if Person X did not, in fact, rob a bank.

Courts in New York have held that to prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four elements:

• A false statement purporting to be fact: This means that the statement is objectively untrue and can be proven false.
• Publication or communication of the statement to a third person: The statement must be transmitted beyond the person making the statement and the subject of the statement.
• Fault amounting to at least negligence: The defendant made the statement negligently, recklessly, or with knowledge of its falsity.
• Damages or harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity: The statement must have resulted in tangible harm to the subject's reputation or character.

It is important to note that truth is an absolute defense to defamation. If a statement is true, it cannot be considered defamatory, even if it causes harm to the subject's reputation. Additionally, statements about matters of public interest that cannot be proven true or false are also protected from defamation actions.

In summary, the key difference between false statements and opinions in the context of defamation in New York is that opinions are protected speech under the First Amendment, whereas false statements of fact are considered defamatory if they cause harm to the subject's reputation.

Libel vs slander

Defamation is a broad term that covers any false statement made about another person or entity that causes harm to their reputation. In New York, there are two categories of defamation: libel and slander. Libel refers to defamatory statements that are written, printed, or otherwise recorded in a permanent form. This includes statements made in news articles or social media posts. On the other hand, slander involves spoken statements that harm someone's reputation, typically made in casual conversation or public speeches.

To bring a successful defamation claim in New York, the plaintiff must prove that the statement was false, published to a third party, and caused measurable harm. Additionally, public figures need to show actual malice, meaning the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This was established in the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, where a public official was required to prove that the false and defaming statements were made with actual malice.

While libel and slander have distinct definitions, the line between the two can sometimes blur. For example, trade libel refers to the publication of false statements that are derogatory to a plaintiff's business. This can include oral or written statements and is considered a form of injurious falsehood in New York. In the context of business defamation, victims have three years to file a lawsuit for injurious falsehood, whereas the statute of limitations for libel and slander claims is one year from the date of publication or communication.

It is important to note that defamation laws in New York provide stronger protection for private individuals compared to public figures. As a result, it is generally harder for public figures to succeed in defamation claims. Additionally, winning a defamation case based on negligent statements about a public figure is challenging, as actual malice must be proven. However, private individuals may still prevail in defamation lawsuits if the speaker was negligent in determining the truth of their statements.

Actual malice

In the context of defamation, "actual malice" means that the defendant made the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The New York Times v. Sullivan court held that public figures must prove that a defamatory statement was made with actual malice "by clear and convincing evidence." This means that the plaintiff must prove actual malice beyond the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence standard.

In New York, the Court of Appeals has not explicitly addressed the standard to be applied in situations involving private individuals not involved in matters of public concern. However, lower courts have held that a negligence standard of liability should be applied.

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things:

• A false statement purporting to be fact
• Publication or communication of that statement to a third person
• Fault amounting to at least negligence
• Damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement

In New York, defamation is defined as a false statement published to third parties that exposes a person or entity to hatred, contempt, aversion, or induces an unsavory opinion in the minds of members of the community. The heart of a valid claim for defamation in New York hinges on whether or not the statement caused damage to the subject's reputation.

Qualified privilege, sometimes referred to as 'common interest privilege', typically applies in situations where the publisher has a moral, legal, or ethical duty to communicate a statement, and the audience has a reciprocal interest in hearing that statement. Qualified privilege does not protect individuals who communicate or publish statements with actual malice. In New York, qualified privilege applies to "statements made in good faith to a third party with a corresponding interest or duty in the matter being communicated."

Explore related products

Libel (1959)

$3.79

Blood Libel: On the Trail of an Antisemitic Myth

$29.49 $43

Libeled Lady

$3.99

A Lie and a Libel: The History of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

$11.49 $12.95

Associated Press Stylebook And Libel Manual

$47

The Copyright Permission & Libel Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers

$17.79 $21

Defamation per se

The four categories of statements that constitute defamation per se in New York include:

• Statements accusing an individual of a serious crime: These are statements that charge a person with engaging in criminal activity. For example, an allegedly defamatory statement accusing someone of false imprisonment and battery would fall under this category.
• Statements harming an individual's trade, business, or profession: These are statements implying that an individual has been engaging in behaviour incompatible with the proper ethical or professional conduct of their business or profession. For instance, implying that someone is sexually promiscuous or unchaste in the context of their profession could be considered defamatory per se.
• Statements imputing a loathsome disease: These are statements alleging that an individual has an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease.
• Statements causing special harm: These are statements that expose another person or business to aversion, contempt, hatred, or induce an unsavory or evil opinion in the minds of a significant number of people in the community.

It is important to note that the defendant in a defamation per se case may still present defences, such as asserting that their statement was true, expressing an opinion, or claiming absolute or qualified privilege. Additionally, the statute of limitations for filing a defamation claim in New York is one year, but this clock may reset if the defamatory statement is republished to a new audience.

Defamation defences

In New York, defamation is defined as a false statement published to third parties that exposes a person or entity to hatred, contempt, aversion, or to induce an unsavory opinion in the minds of members of the community. To prove defamation, one must show that the statement was made about them, that it was published by a media outlet, that it resulted in injury to their character or reputation, that it was false, and that it was without privilege.

Defamation can be either libel or slander. Libel occurs when someone publishes a false statement about another person in a tangible medium, such as a news article or social media post, while slander is verbal defamation, such as through a public speech or a YouTube video.

Truth

If the statement in question is true, it is not considered defamation. The accused party may attempt to demonstrate that their statement was factually accurate. Statements that are partially true may still be considered defamatory, but the fact that a statement is partially true may mitigate the amount of damages awarded by the court.

Consent

If the accused party can prove they had consent to make the statement, the defamation claim may not succeed.

Immunity

Certain statements, such as those made in the context of a judicial proceeding, are provided with absolute immunity and cannot be subject to a defamation claim. Other statements, such as those intended to protect the public, are subject to qualified immunity, which is discarded if the statement is made with malice.

Retraction

Defendants have an opportunity to mitigate punitive damages by retracting defamatory material. However, this does not release them from liability regarding compensatory damages.

Frequently asked questions