MBE Torts Masterclass: defamation. скачать в хорошем качестве

MBE Torts Masterclass: defamation.

This episode of MBE Torts Prep covers defamation and the constitutional limits that now shape it. Defamation requires five core elements: a defamatory statement of fact (not pure opinion or hyperbole), that is “of and concerning” the plaintiff, published to at least one third party, false, and made with the required level of fault, plus damages. The First Amendment transforms the analysis by making plaintiff status central. Public officials and public figures—whether all-purpose celebrities or limited-purpose figures who voluntarily inject themselves into public controversies—must prove actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Actual malice does not mean hatred or spite, and sloppy reporting alone is usually negligence, not constitutional malice. Private plaintiffs generally need only negligence for compensatory damages, though presumed and punitive damages often require actual malice depending on the context and whether the speech involves a matter of public concern. The episode also explains the difference between defamation per se categories—such as accusations of serious crime or statements harming someone in their profession—and per quod claims requiring proof of special damages, along with the continuing role of privileges. Absolute privilege protects statements made in judicial and legislative proceedings regardless of motive, while qualified privilege protects certain good-faith communications, such as employment references, unless abused through excessive publication, improper purpose, or knowledge of falsity. The key exam strategy is to classify the statement as fact or opinion, identify plaintiff status immediately, apply the correct fault standard, determine whether per se damages apply, and always check for applicable privileges before concluding liability.