[baryphonic]

> In the US, getting someone convicted of libel or settling for it is pretty solid proof. It means the person being libeled likely could prove that the person making the claims knew they were false and maliciously spread them anyways.

Proving actual malice is only a requirement if the plaintiff is a public figure per New York Times v Sullivan. People who are not public figures have a lower burden of proof, though it is still substantially more stringent than in the UK.

[dragonwriter]

> People who are not public figures have a lower burden of proof, though it is still substantially more stringent than in the UK.

While state rules for private figures differ, the Constitutional limit (as articulated in Gertz v. Welch) prohibits liability without fault, that is, there must be at least negligence even if the statement is factually false, and also prohibits punitive damages without actual malice.

In the UK, defamation is strict liability (there is no fault requirement) in addition to truth being an affirmative defense rather than falsity being an element of the tort.

[baryphonic]

Negligence is a significantly lower standard than actual malice, and presumably a person who has been defamed would be seeking significant actual damages anyway (the sum of lost wages for a SWE following a false SA allegation, for example, would be quite large even in the absence of punitive damages).

That's the only point I was making.

[singleshot_]

They have a lower burden of proof? Or they have to prove fewer elements?

[dragonwriter]

They (can) have different, less stringent elements, not fewer (state rules vary, but there can be a less stringent fault element than actual malice, though there must still be fault — defamation cannot be strict liability in the US.)