Publication Date
6-2025
Document Type
Comments
First Page
694
Abstract
This paper defends the continued relevance of the actual malice standard in defamation law, arguing that it is essential to preserving First Amendment values in the modern media environment. Derived from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , the actual malice standard protects the spread of information, open debate, and individual freedom of expression—principles that are even more important in an era defined by social media and internet-created public figures. The actual malice standard has faced increased scrutiny from politicians, academics, and the bench, with many arguing that its requirement is outdated and unfair, especially in light of the internet and social media. This paper argues the opposite: as more individuals are thrust into public status through online platforms, defamation law must continue to distinguish between harmful falsehoods and protected, good-faith speech, and the actual malice standard accomplishes this. By analyzing the First Amendment justifications for the doctrine and recent case law involving both traditional and digital-age public figures, this paper shows that the actual malice standard is not an insurmountable bar to recovery. Instead, it remains a necessary safeguard for democratic discourse, allowing room for error and opinion while still providing remedies for truly defamatory speech.
Repository Citation
Rachel
M.
Shoemaker,
From Presidents to Influencers: In Support of Actual Malice in the Internet Age,
27
U. Pa. J. Const. L.
694
(2025).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jcl/vol27/iss3/4