Answer:
Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their minds about elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit.
When an official is criticized in a false and injurious way for something that relates to their behavior in office, the official must prove all of the above elements associated with normal defamation, and must also show that the statement was made with "actual malice."
"Actual malice" was defined in a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1988, Hustler v. Falwell. In that case, the court held that certain statements that would otherwise be defamatory were protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
This meant that public officials could only win a defamation suit when the statement that was made wasn't an honest mistake and was in fact published with the actual intent to harm the public figure. Actual malice only occurs when the person making the statement knew the statement was not true at the time the statement was made or had a reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.
For other people that are in the public eye, such as celebrities, they too must prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice.
hope it helps
Answer:
C. law of diminishing marginal utility
Explanation:
If not? Which one was it?
California receives the highest total amount of federal funding at $43.61 billion. California, however, only receives net federal funding of $12 per resident.
please give me brainliest
