| Apparently it's more complicated than either of us think. > The common law traditionally presumed that a statement was false once a plaintiff proved that the statement was defamatory. Under modern law, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove falsity as a prerequisite for recovery. Some states have likewise now provided that falsity is an element of defamation that any plaintiff must prove in order to recover. Where this is not a requirement, truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander. http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defens... But if these jury instructions are correct and up to date, California remains one of the states where truth is an affirmative defense. > [Name of defendant] is not responsible for [name of plaintiff]’s harm, if any, if [he/she] proves that [his/her] statement(s) about [name of plaintiff] [was/were] true. [Name of defendant] does not have to prove that the statement(s) [was/were] true in every detail, so long as the statement(s) [was/were] substantially true. https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1720... Of course, this is for private plaintiffs on matters of private concern. If Peter Thiel was ruled a public figure, libel would be essentially impossible to prove. |