Libel Laws

[barbitu8]

@Acsenray

Defamation claims are made under state law, not federal law, but the truth defense is derived from the First Amendment. I don’t know that there has been a definitive statement by the Supreme Court that truth is an absolute defense under the First Amendment, but I don’t think anyone expect that it could possibly rule otherwise.

It’s federal precedent that establishes the public figure standard, as well as the fact-opinion dichotomy, and the bar on strict liability. The Falwell case is a U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting the First Amendment, and thus is binding on all state courts.

The right of free speech is not absolute. It yields to a compelling interest of the government, which could be a state government.

[Acsenray]

@barbitu8

The right of free speech is not absolute. It yields to a compelling interest of the government, which could be a state government.

And what specific point do you think you’re making with this vague truism?

[barbitu8]

@Acsenray

And what specific point do you think you’re making with this vague truism?

If a state determines that even if the statement is true, but is done with malice, it has a compelling interest to prevent such malicious statements unless the person is a “public figure” (who thus has opened himself or herself to public scrutiny).

[Acsenray]

It’s not clear whether you are proposing this as a personal philosophy or as applicable law in some jurisdiction. Do you have an applicable decision at hand? My reading of Noonan v. Staples is that the First Amendment issue was never addressed. Unless I’m missing something,

[barbitu8]

As I stated at post #18, IIRC, I’m fairly certain that was the law in Illinois. However, I studied law in Illinois over 40 years ago. I could be mistaken, but that’s the way I recall it. I’m retired now in SC, and haven’t been in Illinois since 1985. Moreover, I never practiced law, having worked for Chicago Title and SSA.