united-states libel us-supreme-court
Is it illegal for public figures to knowingly state a falsehood?
<p>Here is an excerpt from <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/business/media/can-libel-laws-be-changed-under-trump.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&amp;smid=nytcore-iphone-share" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article in the New York Times</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Supreme Court established the First Amendment principles that govern the country’s libel laws in 1964, with its unanimous decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. In that ruling, the court said that public officials had to prove that false statements were made with “actual malice,” meaning news organizations had to have knowingly published a falsehood or published it with “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”</p>
<p>The standard, later extended to include public figures, set a high bar for libel and meant that people like Mr. Trump — both a public figure and soon-to-be public official — would have a very, very difficult time winning a libel lawsuit.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is it correct that the Supreme Court decided that it is illegal for public figures to knowingly state a falsehood? Are there any other laws/cases that shed light on this?</p>

<p><strong>tl;dr</strong></p>

<p>No, <em>N.Y. Times v. Sullivan</em> established the actual malice standard in the context of defamation.  It is not illegal for a public figure to claim the sun revolves around the Earth unless some other law intervenes (maybe something fact-dependant like fraud or lying under oath).</p>

<p><strong>Background</strong></p>

<p>Here's an example of how <em>N.Y. Times</em> would work in California.  Under California law, slander, along with libel, are the defamation torts. <em>See</em> Cal. Civ. Code. § 44. The First Amendment limits California’s slander law by requiring public figures prove actual malice when they want to sue someone for defaming them. <em>Khawar v. Globe Int’l</em>, 19 Cal. 4th 254, 262 (1998).  (The Supreme Court got involved in <em>N.Y. Times</em> in the first place because of the First Amendment implications on the States' defamation laws.) </p>

<p>In turn, "actual malice" means a statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false." <em>Khawar</em>, 19 Cal. 4th at 275 (citing <em>N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan</em>, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964)). As to knowledge, California courts consider only actual—not constructive—knowledge. <em>Comedy III Prods., Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc.</em>, 25 Cal. 4th 387, 398 (2001).  In turn, actual knowledge "consists in express information of fact." I.E. Assoc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 39 Cal. 3d 281, 285 (1985).</p>

<p>This is a bunch of lawyer-speak, but it basically sets up a pretty high bar for the public figure who is trying to prove defamation.  Again, <em>N.Y. Times</em> doesn't have to do with barring public figures from making non-defamatory false statements.  You'd have to look to other areas of law about false representations or lying under oath for a claim against the politician.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/california" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;california&#39;" rel="tag">california</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is it correct that the Supreme Court decided that it is illegal for public figures to knowingly state a falsehood?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the United States (unlike most other country) it is legal to say whatever you want EXCEPT when it is verbal action that is otherwise a crime. E.g., directing someone to commit and act that is a crime.</p>

<p>Libelous statements are not illegal in the United States. You can make libelous statements as much as you want as long as you compensate those affected for the injury that you cause.</p>

<p>If it were illegal for public figures to make false statements, the entire government would be in jail.</p>
