An Unreasonable Standard?: The Dilemma of Applying Actual Malice to Irrational Speakers

Abstract

Several defamation cases stemming from apparently irrational statements are testing the boundaries and standards of defamation law. The constitutional standard for defamation of public figures, actual malice, is based on the speaker’s knowledge that a statement is false or their reckless disregard for whether it is true. An irrational speaker who believes their statement is true confounds this test. This article delineates aspects of defamation law that are challenged by an irrational speaker and concludes with a recommendation to include a stronger “objective” element in the application of the actual malice standard to such cases.