← back to the Substrate Record
qid 1028 · law
Question: A newspaper published a story about a U. S. senator having close ties to people suspected of being involved in organized crime. The senator claimed that the allegations in the newspaper story were false, and he brought a defamation action against the newspaper. Which of the following is the most accurate statement with regard to the newspaper's liability?
- The newspaper would be liable regardless of the truth of the allegations due to the damaging nature of the report.
- Because the senator is a public figure, he has the burden of proof to show malice on the part of the newspaper.
- The newspaper would not be liable if it can prove the story was based on credible sources.
- The newspaper would not be liable because, under the First Amendment's freedom of the press, the newspaper was privileged to publish the story.
- The senator must prove that the newspaper had a personal vendetta against him to hold the newspaper liable.
- A qualified privilege of fair comment existed because the newspaper was reporting on a matter of public interest.
- The newspaper would be relieved of any liability for defamation because the senator is a public figure.
- The newspaper would be relieved of any liability for defamation because an absolute privilege existed.
- The senator must not only prove malice, but also that the newspaper's report directly resulted in personal or professional harm.
Our answer: B. Because the senator is a public figure, he has the burden of proof to show malice on the part of the newspaper. Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)
How it was answered
Multi-step solver (maze), replayed by code
Current source
Wikipedia, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (quoting 376 U.S. at 279-80)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)
Earlier version (superseded)
No public source has been found for this card yet (3 places checked internally).