Retraction's Role Under the Actual Malice Rule

Retraction's Role Under the Actual Malice Rule

Under common libel law, if a retraction - a correction and full-faith apology for the plaintiff - is published, it can be used as a mitigating defense against punitive damage awards. In New York Times versus Sullivan, actual malice is defined as the reckless disregard for truth or knowledge of falsi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Communications and the law Vol. 6; no. 4; p. 39
Main Author: Dickerson, Donna L
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Westport Fred B. Rothman & Company 01-08-1984
Subjects:
Common law
Defamation
Libel
Libel & slander
Punitive damages
Supreme Court decisions
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Under common libel law, if a retraction - a correction and full-faith apology for the plaintiff - is published, it can be used as a mitigating defense against punitive damage awards. In New York Times versus Sullivan, actual malice is defined as the reckless disregard for truth or knowledge of falsifying. A retraction printed after an act of responsible journalism should not be given any weight on the question of actual malice. If a reporter has acted irresponsibly and with reckless disregard, that evidence alone should be sufficient to find the reporter responsible for libel. A retraction corrects errors in facts, but cannot right the wrongs that might have been committed by the reporter. However, retraction can play a role in libel suits involving private plaintiffs: it can be useful in determining the amount of general (actual) damages.
ISSN:0162-9093