To avoid defamation liability, the defendants should argue that Jones is a public official recognized by the law and that the defendants’ statements are protected by the First Amendment. Another defense the writer of the Town Crier’s newspaper and the newspaper itself can argue is that “the defamation statement was absolute privilege which shield the author of a defamatory statement regardless of her knowledge, motive,
or intent” (Prenkert, et al, 2022).
The definition of “defamation is ordinarily defined as the (1) unprivileged, (2) publication of false and (3) defamatory statements (4) concerning another” (Prenkert, et al, 2022). All of the elements for a defamation lawsuit have not been met in the case and the case
against the defendants and should be dismissed by the court.
Furthermore, I do not believe Jones should win his case because Jones is a public official and as a plaintiff and Jones would need to “prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence in order to win his case” (Prenkert, et al, 2022). Like in the Bertrand
lawsuit, “the defendants did not commit actual malice” Bertrand v. Mullin
(2014).
References
Rick Bertrand v. Rick Mullin, 846 N.W.2d 884 (2014).
Prenkert, J. D., Barnes, A. J., Perry, J. E., Haugh, T., & Stemler, A. R. (2022). Business law: The ethical, global, and digital environment
(18th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
