Purveyors of Hate

 Defamation is the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person, place, or thing that results in damage to its reputation.

Public figures, public officials, and limited-purpose public figures all must prove that a defamatory publication was made about them with actual malice as part of their case in chief in any defamation action brought on the basis of that publication.

"All the relevant circumstances surrounding the transactionprovided they are not too remote, including threats, prior or subsequent defamations, subsequent statements of the defendant, circumstances indicating the existence of rivalry, ill will, or hostility between the parties, facts tending to show a reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights, and, in an action against a newspaper, custom and usage with respect to the treatment of news items of the nature of the one under consideration."

The main distinguishing feature is that public officials are not necessarily attention-seeking, and as a result, they are not always treated as "Public" plaintiffs who would need to show malice in order to prevail in a defamation action.

The reality of this Substack business model is that as the target of the defamation becomes more popular or develops a larger social media presence, it becomes more and more lucrative to spread lies, defamation and hate about that person.

Ms. Schaecher sued for defamation and the defendant demurred on the ground the statements were opinions, not factual assertions.

The circuit court sustained the demurrer to the defamation claim, and the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, finding the statements amounted to "Pure opinion" and were therefore not actionable.

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/purveyors-of-hate?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=583200&post_id=109416199&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email