Defamation per se

Definition

Defamation per se refers to statements that are inherently harmful and defamatory without the need for additional proof of damage. This type of defamation usually includes accusations of criminal activity, claims that a person has a contagious disease, or statements that harm a person's profession or business. The key aspect of defamation per se is that these statements are considered damaging on their face, making it easier for the plaintiff to win their case since they do not need to provide evidence of harm.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Defamation per se allows plaintiffs to bypass the requirement of proving actual damages because the statements are considered harmful on their own.
2. Common categories of defamation per se include allegations of a crime, claims of having a contagious disease, and statements about professional incompetence.
3. In many jurisdictions, defamation per se is treated differently than defamation per quod, which requires specific proof of damages.
4. Public figures must show actual malice to win a defamation per se case, while private individuals may only need to prove negligence.
5. Defenses against defamation per se include truth, opinion, and privilege, which can help shield defendants from liability.

Review Questions

• How does defamation per se differ from other forms of defamation regarding the burden of proof required from the plaintiff?
  • Defamation per se differs from other forms like defamation per quod because it does not require the plaintiff to prove actual damages. The nature of the statement itself is considered inherently damaging, so simply proving that a defamatory statement was made is sufficient for the plaintiff to establish their claim. In contrast, other types may require evidence showing how the statement harmed the plaintiff's reputation or finances.
• What are some common defenses used in defamation per se cases, and how do they protect defendants?
  • Common defenses against defamation per se include truth, which asserts that the statement made is factually accurate, thus negating any claim of harm. Opinion is another defense, where the defendant argues that the statement was a subjective viewpoint rather than a factual assertion. Additionally, privilege can protect certain communications made in specific contexts, such as court proceedings or legislative debates. These defenses help shield defendants by demonstrating that the statement does not meet the criteria for defamation.
• Evaluate how the standard of actual malice impacts defamation per se claims involving public figures compared to private individuals.
  • The standard of actual malice significantly impacts defamation per se claims by public figures because they must demonstrate that the defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This higher burden aims to balance First Amendment protections with protecting individual reputations. In contrast, private individuals typically only need to show negligence, making it easier for them to succeed in their claims. This distinction reflects ongoing legal debates over freedom of speech versus protecting personal reputations.

Related terms

Libel: A form of defamation that involves written or published false statements about an individual, which harm their reputation.

Slander: A type of defamation that involves spoken false statements about an individual, leading to reputational damage.

Actual Malice: A legal standard in defamation cases, requiring proof that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.