Doesn't defamation of a public figure require "actual malice"? If so, doesn't the CEO's admission in writing that "I believe your post was made in good faith" severely undermine any claims of defamation?
That depends on whether every startup CEO is considered a public figure by default. Does this guy have much name recognition outside of his niche? I would wager not.
Even if he is found to be a public figure, I believe the "actual malice" standard would be determined by the defendant's knowledge and regard/disregard for the truth at the time of writing -- meaning it doesn't matter whether the CEO later believed the defamatory statements were made in good faith.
In some jurisdictions, there is the concept of a limited purpose public figure. Libeling a CEO for his work as CEO might fall therein, while libeling him in the context of pro wrestling might not.
Comments
Doesn't defamation of a public figure require "actual malice"? If so, doesn't the CEO's admission in writing that "I believe your post was made in good faith" severely undermine any claims of defamation?
That depends on whether every startup CEO is considered a public figure by default. Does this guy have much name recognition outside of his niche? I would wager not.
Even if he is found to be a public figure, I believe the "actual malice" standard would be determined by the defendant's knowledge and regard/disregard for the truth at the time of writing -- meaning it doesn't matter whether the CEO later believed the defamatory statements were made in good faith.
In some jurisdictions, there is the concept of a limited purpose public figure. Libeling a CEO for his work as CEO might fall therein, while libeling him in the context of pro wrestling might not.