Yet .. Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop— only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet. https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
one of my original links .. if Jones' statement that Hillary has people killed .. surely, if that's not with ""actual malice"", what could he say that would be?
Obviously, they don't sue people as Jones for real and good reasons, just i can't figure why saying someone has people killed in the way, and for the reasons, that Jones says it wouldn't be seen as something said with malice.
Actual malice in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice
The first bit i see it would be hard to prove Jones knew it was false if he said he believed it was true, but how about the last bit. Why wouldn't that apply in this case?
lol, Janice, you know i'm just trying to understand the big picture more .. appreciate your help .. :)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
