The Me Too era has featured a surge in sexual misconduct claims against elected officials, celebrities and prominent businesspersons. Some of these public figures have admitted wrongdoing tacitly or even with explicit public apologies. Others have sought to discredit their accusers—often with sharp counter-accusations of dishonesty, consensual relations or a mixture of the two. Counter-accusations against the typically female complainant—if false—may create further injury—and can give rise to seemingly viable defamation claims. Nonetheless, if the accuser is or becomes a public figure herself, she will need to plead and prove “actual malice,” to prevail on her defamation claim.
The actual malice standard poses an evidentiary hurdle that alleged victims may be unable to clear. Recent cases show that not only famous figures, but historically “private” individuals as well who elect to speak out publicly regarding their sexual claims, will need to show actual malice to prevail on a related defamation claim. The former group because they are “public figures” in the traditional sense, and the latter because they find themselves classed as “limited-purpose” public figures under defamation law.
