It is not enough to say that your words and deeds are false.
You must also prove that the public figure you defame has an interest in not being heard, even if that interest is not the plaintiff.
In other words, the public figures claim they are being silenced by a public figures defamation lawsuit, and they can only prevail in a defamation action if they are harmed.
For example, if you were the victim of libelous remarks by a reporter about your family, you would not be able to bring a defamation lawsuit against that reporter.
You would have to show that the reporter was motivated by malicious intent, malice, or other such claims.
The Supreme Court in McCulloch v.
Coates has clarified that a public interest in silence is not just one of the elements of defamation, but is also a legitimate defense to the claim of public figure defamation.
McCulloch, which the Court held in 2006, holds that defamation is protected against private injury even if the person whose words or deeds are defamatory is the victim.
McCullough is a case that will be discussed at length below.
State, 515 So.2d 1274 (Fla.
6th DCA 1996).
The defendant was a news reporter who reported on a trial involving the trial of a convicted child rapist who was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
The defendant published the defendant’s statement about the defendant in a newspaper.
The publication of the defendant, however, violated the defendant and his First Amendment rights by defaming him.
The reporter’s comments about the case were not true or accurate, and he was defamed.
The journalist was entitled to a jury trial, and the State appealed.
The Florida Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the State, but reversed, holding that the article was false, and that the State had not demonstrated that the defamations were so extreme and extreme as to make them defamable under the First Amendment.
McCullow, 516 So.3d at 1275.
The Court concluded that there was no substantial likelihood of success for the State because of McCulloch.
Id. at 1276.
However, the Court emphasized that there is a difference between “in the sense of a serious and public threat of harm” and “in a sense of mere private harm that the defendant is personally exposed to.”
The State could not have demonstrated that its defamings were so serious that the publication would result in actual harm to the defendant.
Id., at 1277.
The court further held that the defamation was protected against a public nuisance under the Florida statute.
Id, at 1278.
The statute provides that the plaintiff must prove “that the defendant reasonably believed that his publication of his statements would cause the person or persons named in the article to be injured.”
Id., as amended by FL Stat.
The statute also requires that the statement be true, accurate, clear, and concise.
Id. In addition to the public nuisance defense, the State also has an implied defamation defense.
A defamation lawsuit is not allowed unless the plaintiff proves that the statements were false, which requires proving that the words were intended to cause actual injury to the plaintiff’s reputation or that the actions of the publication were unlawful.
Id.; see also Fla.
I, § 11(b) (West 1996).
In order to prove the public menace of the defamation, the plaintiff also must show that he or she was aware of the facts of the case.
Id.(7) If the State’s theory is that the comments were defamatic and the defaming statements were meant to injure the plaintiff, the defendant must also show that his or her actions were unlawful, or, alternatively, that the publisher knew of the defamation and acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
In this case, the defamsation of the plaintiff and the publication of statements about him were not meant to harm him.
He was simply the subject of an article about the Florida prison system.
It was a matter of public interest that the news media report on the trial and the outcome of the trial.
In addition, the article revealed the existence of a criminal investigation into the death of a inmate, which occurred at the same prison facility where the article had been published.
The publication caused the public to know the existence and conduct of an investigation into that inmate.
The public interest was such that a newspaper article should be taken as a warning against future actions in that area of the state, as well as in other criminal cases.
As the Florida Supreme Judge observed, there is no requirement that the information be true or not.
Id at 1282.
Id,, at 1283.
However “the facts must be true to warrant a defamation claim.”
Id at 1311.
As a result, the fact that the newspaper published the defames the plaintiff