A local newspaper publishes an article alleging that Emily Thompson, a respected doctor, has been involved in unlicensed medical practices. Emily denies these claims and sues the newspaper for defamation, arguing that the statements have damaged her professional reputation. Considering that Emily is a public figure, which defense is the newspaper most likely to successfully assert in response to the defamation claim?
Truth is a complete defense to defamation: if the defendant can establish that the challenged statement is substantially true, the cause of action fails because falsity is an indispensable element of libel or slander. Once truth is shown, it is irrelevant whether the defendant acted with actual malice or any other culpable mental state. Although a public-figure plaintiff must prove actual malice when the statement is false, that burden remains on the plaintiff; the defendant need not disprove it after proving truth. The other suggested defenses are unavailing here. Characterizing the story as a mere opinion fails because the allegation-practicing medicine without a license-is a verifiable fact. Asserting "no intent to harm" does not track the constitutional definition of actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) and would not preclude liability if the statement were false. Finally, there is no evidence that Emily consented to publication, so consent is unavailable. Accordingly, proving the truth of the allegations is the newspaper's strongest and complete defense.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'defamation' mean in a legal context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is 'actual malice' in defamation cases involving public figures?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the significance of 'truth' as a defense in defamation cases?