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:
The Police are aloud to use a non-deadly force.
Explanation:
Hope this helps.
Answer:The electrical charge goes through high-voltage transmission lines that stretch across the country. It reaches a substation, where the voltage is lowered so it can be sent on smaller power lines. ... The electricity travels through wires inside the walls to the outlets and switches all over your house.
Explanation:
The criminal offense of contempt of Congress sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not more than $100,000 or less than $100.
