context: It is not enough to assert that the ordinary purpose of a defamation action is to vindicate and protect a person's common law reputational interest. The First Amendment protects public discourse-- even in the form of withering criticism of a political opponent's past dealings or associations -- unless the lodged attack is clearly shown to be false and made with actual malice.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 102 S.Ct. 3409, 3424
citation_a.parenthetical: "Speech does not lose its protected character ... simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into # action."
citation_a.sentence: See Monitor Patriot Co., 401 U.S. at 274-77, 91 S.Ct. at 626-28, 28 L.Ed.2d at 42-44 (discussing attacks based on private conduct in political campaigns); Garrison, 379 U.S. at 72-73, 85 S.Ct. at 215,13 L.Ed.2d at 132 (“[Wjhere the criticism is of public officials and their conduct of public business, the interest in private reputation is overborne by the larger public interest, secured by the Constitution, in the dissemination of truth.”); see also N.Y. Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 726, 11 L.Ed.2d at 706; cf. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 3424, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215,1234 (1982) (“Speech does not lose its protected character ... simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into ■ action.”). After all, New York Times and its progeny even reach so far as to protect pillorying barbs some may regard as offensive and outrageous.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 85 S.Ct. 215, 215
citation_b.parenthetical: "[Wjhere the criticism is of public officials and their conduct of public business, the interest in private reputation is overborne by the larger public interest, secured by the Constitution, in the dissemination of truth."
citation_b.sentence: See Monitor Patriot Co., 401 U.S. at 274-77, 91 S.Ct. at 626-28, 28 L.Ed.2d at 42-44 (discussing attacks based on private conduct in political campaigns); Garrison, 379 U.S. at 72-73, 85 S.Ct. at 215,13 L.Ed.2d at 132 (“[Wjhere the criticism is of public officials and their conduct of public business, the interest in private reputation is overborne by the larger public interest, secured by the Constitution, in the dissemination of truth.”); see also N.Y. Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 726, 11 L.Ed.2d at 706; cf. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 3424, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215,1234 (1982) (“Speech does not lose its protected character ... simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into ■ action.”). After all, New York Times and its progeny even reach so far as to protect pillorying barbs some may regard as offensive and outrageous.