[KittenInABox]

No, you have to prove that it was stated with intent of spreading false information about the person who was wronged. A reporter who genuinely believed that Viola made those statements can't be judged as committing defamation.

[dragonwriter]

> No, you have to prove that it was stated with intent of spreading false information about the person who was wronged.

Even for public figures where the NY Times v. Sullivan “actual malice” standard applies, intentional/knowing falsity is not required; reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement is sufficient for actual malice.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

[KittenInABox]

OK, let me add in your clarification. Thank you for educating me on the matter.

[spoonjim]

So if I genuinely think you murdered a baby I can publish articles saying you did, with no legal consequence?

[xadhominemx]

Yes, that is the definition of defamation in the United States

[colinmhayes]

yes, if you can prove that you genuinely believe it.

[spoonjim]

In the US that standard is only applied to public figures. For a private figure, the speaker can commit defamation if they do not exert reasonable care to ensure that the statement is true.

[xadhominemx]

No, the burden is not “exert reasonable care that the statement is true”

It’s much more relaxed: “cannot have acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement is true”