A columnist for a major metropolitan newspaper had a very antagonistic relationship with the city’s mayor. When a restaurant own
ed by the columnist’s family was shut down by city health inspectors, the columnist responded with a column publicizing the shutdown and asserting that it was in retaliation for his prior columns in which he had criticized the mayor. In fact, the mayor had nothing to do with the action by the city health inspectors. While the columnist had no evidence of the mayor’s involvement, he believed that there was a connection because "that’s how the city works." Can the mayor recover against the columnist for defamation?
A. No, because the columnist did not act with actual malice.B. No, because the columnist had a qualified privilege to explain why he believed his family's business was shut down.C. Yes, because the columnist's hostility toward the mayor establishes malice so as to overcome any qualified privilege the columnist had.D. Yes, because the columnist should have investigated the accuracy of his claims before publishing the column.
Answer: The correct answer is A (No, because the columnist did not act with actual malice)
Explanation:
A plaintiff in cases of defamation of character can recover when there is an evidence of actual malice against the defendant. In this case, it cannot be said that the columnist acted with actual malice because the mayor cannot prove that the columnist knew that the statement was false or that the columnist purposely disregarded the truth of the matter
