Let’s say you put in writing and sign the paper than someone was found guilty of causing “death.” When they sue you for libel, you explain you meant to write “theft,” which is true. But you put in writing and signed your name to the fact that they are a murderer.
Is “I made a mistake” a good legal defense?
It can be, potentially. If you researched the claim and found evidence that someone was convicted of murder (say there was a clerical error in the court records) then you would have a good argument that you reasonably believed it to be true. OTOH, if you knew it was false, or didn’t bother to check, or just did a really bad job researching the claim, you may have libeled them.
If the person is a public figure, the burden of proof is substantially higher, requiring a reckless disregard for the truth.
Also, the person alleging libel needs to prove that the wrong information actually harmed them in some way. If you told your friend “Joe Blow was convicted of murder!” over cocktails, that probably wouldn’t actually harm Joe Blow. But if you told that to Joe’s boss, or published it in a newspaper, it might.
In the US, yes, if by “mistake” you mean “I behaved reasonably but erred.” Even for private figures, US law requires negligence at a minimum.
In other countries, no, an innocent mistake is not a defense.
It would be fair comment in many countries.
As I read the OP, it’s more of a typo than a “reasonably belief.” Putting out a false statement which you would easily know was false if you had taken the time to proof read is probably negligence and sufficient if the other elements are present.
Damages might not need to be established (see defamation per se)
Of course, if you’re dealing with a public figure, negligence is not sufficient and “actual malice” must be established.
I should again emphasize that practically all of the responses here are only valid for US law, and while they might incidentally be more-or-less accurate for the law of other countries, they use American-specific phrasing, such as “actual malice”, which comes directly from the Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Other countries, such as the UK, have vastly different standards surrounding defamation (both libel and slander are defamation) and some of them, such as the UK, have such plaintiff-friendly laws that people from other countries will travel to the UK to engage in libel tourism, because they have a greater chance of winning in a British court. This has led to the US passing the SPEECH Act, which prevents foreign defamation judgments from being recognized or enforced here unless the foreign jurisdiction offers the same free speech protections as the First Amendment does, or an American court would have reached the same verdict, among other useful reforms.
It may well be. In common law countries generally, “honest belief in the truth of the statement complained” is an element of the defence of qualified privilege.
That wouldn’t help the defendant in the OP, since he didn’t honestly believe that the plaintff was guilty of causing death. But, then, if the US test is “negligence”, it’s prima facie negligent to impute homicide to write and publish “death” where “thefit” is intended.
So, whether within the US or elsewhere, the defendant in the OP couldn’t rely on his mistake to exculpate him.
Yeah, that was a bit ambiguous. I did not mean in *all *other countries.
I recently watched a livestream by a lawyer about defamation. He mentioned that a retraction would make it very difficult to win against a claim of defamation.
Would that be the case here?
In the common law provinces of Canada, yes. Provincial statutes provide that prompt retractions provide a defence or strong limitation on damages.
I thought for libel or slander you had to prove malice as well, not just that you knowingly printed false info.
That’s in American law, for public figures. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment required that additional requirement to protect the right to criticize public figures.
It’s not found in other common law countries as an element of the torts, but if proven would be an aggravating factor in damages.
[nitpick]
If this is actually a fact (that they are indeed a murderer) you have the perfect defense: you told the truth.
[/nitpick]
Piggybacking off this question: what exactly constitutes a ‘public figure’ for this purpose? Is it just that your name is known to a certain percentage of the population, or do you have to have voluntarily made your personal life public to some degree?
Say Joe Blow is a famous artist, everyone knows his work, but he’s deliberately very private about his personal life: all the public knows about him is that he was born in 1980, he’s married with three kids and living in Boston - information that’s public record.
To use the example in the OP, if I spread it across the internet that Joe Blow was found guilty of causing death when I actually mean theft, and everyone stops buying his paintings, I’ve been negligent, and if he’s a private citizen I’ve committed libel. But it probably doesn’t meet the threshold of reckless disregard, and there was no malice involved, so if he’s a public figure I’m cool.
Where’s the borderline? If ‘Joe Blow’ is actually a pseudonym, then does he remain a private citizen? What if the pseudonym isn’t a particularly well-kept secret?
There are two types of public figure. A public official or anyone else who is pervasively involved in public affairs - say, Donald Trump when he was just a candidate - is always a public figure for defamation purposes. Casey Anthony is a public figure despite not having done anything to seek out publicity. The same might be said of an attorney who has appeared before SCOTUS, or who gains fame because of one high-profile case (e.g., Johnny Cochrane).
There is also a “limited purpose public figure,” which is someone who isn’t necessarily famous but who has inserted him/herself into a particular public issue. For example, a local NRA official may be a limited purpose public figure if he comments on a police shooting, and defamatory comments about him which have some nexus to the shooting are treated under the public figure standard.
Joe Blow is likely to be a general-purpose public figure because his fame is pervasive. The fact that he is secretive about his personal life may give rise to a defamation-related claim such as false light or invasion of privacy, but is probably not relevant to libel or slander claims.
Not sure about the effect of a pseudonym, but Norma McCorvey was a public figure despite initially becoming famous under a pseudonym (she was the Roe in Roe v. Wade).
Thanks - that’s really interesting. I think I would’ve expected there to be a separation between professional fame (everyone knows you invented the perpetual motion machine, no one knows anything else about you) and personal fame (you’re a Kardashian), with the first one making you a public figure in professional terms but not in personal terms: internet randos get to say that your perpetual motion machine is a hoax without actually double-checking it, but not that you’re a thief.