Liability of the Originator of Defamatory Statements

Liability of the Originator of Defamatory Statements: Principles of Original and Republication Liability under U.S. Federal and State Law

Introduction

Defamation, encompassing both libel (written) and slander (spoken), concerns false statements that harm an individual's reputation. A crucial element in any defamation claim is "publication," which, in legal terms, means the communication of the defamatory statement to at least one third party.[14] This article analyzes the scope of liability for the originator of a defamatory statement under United States federal and state law. Specifically, it examines the foundational principles holding originators accountable not only for their initial dissemination but also, under certain circumstances, for subsequent republications by others, including the defamed party.

General Principles of Originator Liability

The traditional rule in defamation law is that the originator of a defamatory statement is liable for its publication.[6] This liability rests upon the defendant's intention to communicate the defamatory statement to someone other than the plaintiff, or at least upon negligent responsibility for such communication.[6] The act of communicating the defamatory matter to a third party who understands its defamatory meaning and its applicability to the plaintiff constitutes publication.[14]

Liability for Republication

The liability of an originator can extend beyond the initial act of publication to encompass subsequent repetitions or republications of the defamatory statement. This extension of liability is generally predicated on the concept of foreseeability or authorization.

The Foreseeability Doctrine

A significant body of case law, particularly in California, establishes that the originator of a defamatory statement is liable for each repetition of the statement if such repetition was reasonably foreseeable.[14], [15] The California Supreme Court, endorsing this view, cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 576, which holds the original defamer liable if "the repetition was authorized or intended by the original defamer" or "the repetition was reasonably to be expected."[15] The rationale underpinning this rule is "the strong causal link between the actions of the originator and the damage caused by the republication."[2], [11], [13], [15], [16] This principle has been applied where, for example, information provided to a credit reporting agency was foreseeably republished in a credit report.[15]

In New York, while some federal district courts have applied a foreseeability standard for originator liability in republication cases,[5], [17] the New York Court of Appeals has not definitively adopted this standard. The Court has acknowledged the open question of whether a defendant could be liable for restatements if they participated in the original publication with "knowledge or a reasonable expectation that republication was likely," but has found, in cases before it, that even if such a standard were adopted, the plaintiffs could not meet it, particularly where defendants had no knowledge of or role in the republication.[5], [17]

Compelled Self-Publication

An exception to the general rule that a plaintiff cannot recover for publications they themselves make is the doctrine of "compelled self-publication." Under this doctrine, the originator of a defamatory statement may be liable when the person defamed is under a "strong compulsion" to disclose the contents of the defamatory statement to a third person, and the originator had reason to believe such compulsion would arise.[1], [2], [11], [12], [13], [16]

The rationale, as articulated in McKinney v. County of Santa Clara and echoed in other jurisdictions like Colorado (Churchey v. Adolph Coors[2]) and West Virginia (Prater v. Henry Schein, Inc.[16]), is that the causal link is "no less strong where the foreseeable republication is made by the person defamed operating under a strong compulsion to republish the defamatory statement and the circumstances which create the strong compulsion are known to the originator of the defamatory statement at the time he communicates it to the person defamed."[2], [11], [13], [16] This exception has often been applied in employment contexts, where a former employee is practically compelled to disclose the reasons for termination (if defamatory) to prospective employers.[13]

However, the compelled self-publication rule is narrowly construed. California courts have limited it "to a narrow class of cases, usually where a plaintiff is compelled to republish the statements in aid of disproving them."[1], [13] Mere republication by the plaintiff at meetings, without evidence that it was necessary to disprove the accusations or that the originator could foresee such necessity, is insufficient to trigger originator liability under this doctrine.[1] Iowa courts have also noted that for liability to attach for self-publication, there must be "some urgent or pressing reason for disclosure," beyond voluntary disclosure.[11]

Liability of the Republisher

It is also a well-established principle that one who republishes a defamatory statement made by another is generally subject to liability as if they had originally published it.[3], [4] This holds true even if the republisher identifies the original source of the statement.[3], [4] However, the liability of the republisher, particularly in cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, may be contingent upon the republisher's own fault, often requiring a showing of actual malice.[3], [4] While distinct from the originator's liability, this principle underscores the pervasive nature of defamatory statements once released.

Standards of Fault and Constitutional Limitations

The liability of an originator of a defamatory statement is significantly shaped by constitutional principles flowing from the First Amendment, particularly as interpreted in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan[10] and its progeny.

Abrogation of Strict Liability

At common law, if a defendant intentionally or negligently communicated a statement, they were often strictly liable for its defamatory content.[6] However, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan[10] abrogated strict liability for defamatory statements about public officials. This was extended to public figures in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.[6] Subsequently, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. held that states may not impose civil liability without fault even for the defamation of private individuals, leaving states to define the appropriate standard of fault (typically negligence) in such cases.[6], [8]

The "Actual Malice" Standard

For public officials and public figures, recovery for defamation requires proof that the defendant published the false statement with "actual malice"—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.[4], [9], [10] "Constitutional malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) is distinct from "common-law malice" (hostility, spite, or ill will).[7] The actual malice standard is designed to protect robust public debate by preventing self-censorship.[9] This standard applies to the originator of the statement. When a republisher is sued, particularly concerning public figures or matters of public concern, the republisher themselves must typically be shown to have acted with actual malice.[3], [4] It is not sufficient that only the originator acted with actual malice if the suit is against the republisher.[4]

Negligence Standard for Private Individuals

In cases involving private individuals and matters not deemed of public concern (though the "public concern" aspect also has complexities), states generally apply a negligence standard.[6], [9] This means the plaintiff must show that the originator failed to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining the truth or falsity of the statement before publishing it.

There has been discussion regarding whether the constitutional protections afforded to media defendants should apply equally to non-media defendants. The Restatement (Second) of Torts suggests it would be anomalous to hold a private person in a casual conversation to a stricter standard than a media entity causing wider harm.[8]

Jurisdictional Approaches to Originator Liability for Republication

While the general principles are widely recognized, specific applications and the explicit adoption of certain doctrines, like foreseeability for republication or compelled self-publication, can vary by jurisdiction.

California has a well-developed body of case law affirming originator liability for foreseeable republications[14], [15] and recognizing the "strong compulsion" exception for self-publication, albeit narrowly applied.[1], [12], [13] The courts emphasize the "strong causal link" and the foreseeability by the originator.[13], [15]

New York federal courts often cite the foreseeability standard for republication liability of an originator.[5], [17] However, the New York Court of Appeals has not definitively adopted this as a broad rule, leaving the question open while deciding cases on narrower grounds, such as the originator's lack of knowledge or participation in the specific republication.[5], [17]

Illinois law clearly states that a republisher is liable for defamation even if the originator is named, but if the plaintiff is a public figure or the matter is of public concern, the plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the republisher.[3], [4] This highlights the independent liability of republishers but also informs the context in which an originator might foresee their statements being repeated with potential liability attaching to those repeaters.

Colorado, through its Supreme Court in Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., explicitly adopted the California approach regarding compelled self-publication, holding that an originator is responsible when they have "reason to believe that the person defamed will be under a strong compulsion to disclose the contents of the defamatory statement to a third person."[2]

Iowa courts have acknowledged the general rule against liability for plaintiff-initiated publication but recognize exceptions where the originator knew or should have known the statements would come to the attention of others, particularly under circumstances of "strong compulsion."[11]

Conclusion

The originator of a defamatory statement bears primary responsibility for its initial publication. This liability can extend to foreseeable republications by third parties, grounded in the strong causal connection between the original statement and subsequent harm. Furthermore, a narrow exception allows for originator liability even when the defamed person republishes the statement, provided they were under a strong, foreseeable compulsion to do so, often in an effort to disprove the defamatory assertion. Across all scenarios, constitutional standards of fault—actual malice for public figures/officials and typically negligence for private individuals—govern the determination of liability. While the core principles are widely accepted, their precise application and the formal adoption of doctrines like foreseeability in the republication context continue to be refined by state courts, reflecting a balance between protecting reputation and upholding freedom of expression.

References