New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 - Supreme Court 1964

A statement is made with "actual malice" if it is made "with knowledge that it [is] false or with reckless disregard of whether it [is] false or not."

—noting "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open

As the Supreme Court has explained, an "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and... it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the `breathing space'that they `need... to survive.'"

—the Supreme Court held that public officials may not prevail in a defamation action unless they can prove "actual malice."

That said, however, the court agrees with defendants that section 1681h (e) bars Adams' negligence and defamation claims. Because the term "malice" is not defined in the FCRA, "courts have borrowed the definition used in the context of libel litigation

Finally, "[t] he right to criticize public officials is at the heart of the First Amendment's right of free speech."

As a public figure, then, Ugwuonye must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Sowore made the challenged statements with actual malice—that is, with actual knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth.