In the context of a defamation action, Colin cannot be considered a public figure when he succeeds in a lawsuit on the incorrect statement that is harmful unless there is evidence that Ralph, the publisher acted with actual malice including reckless disregard for the actual truth or knowing the falsity. The legal strength of proof in defamation action for Colin is more in the case of being a public figure compared in the case of an ordinary person. However, Colin is an involuntary public figure as the result of actual malice of publicity, although he did not invite nor needed public attention. Colin was wrongly accused of high profile crime, and he was incapable of pursuing actions for defamation even after the court proved him innocent.
Further, a person who should win the case is Colin because people terms him a ‘qualified privilege’ in the context of defamation. Qualified privilege allows someone to make a statement that would naturally be considered defamatory, but as a result of particular circumstances, a certain statement made may not be considered to be defamatory. However, Ralph made the statement with actual malice, and he will no longer be entitled to the qualified privilege. In such a scenario, truth is widely accepted as a complete defense to all claims of defamation. There is no justification for the discrepancy, and Ralph must provide evidence for actual malice to prevail in the action of defamation based on his statement relating to the official conduct of Colin. As such, Colin can sue Ralph for ruining his life by publishing lies about him. Similarly, individuals should be able to speak liberally without fear of litigation in case of disagreement. However, freedom of speech is not significant when the statement made by Ralph does not involve the concern of public interest.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
