MBE Rules · Torts
Defamation Privileges and Malice
Defamation — privileges & 1A
The rule
Absolute privileges cover judicial, legislative, and spousal communications; qualified privileges (common interest, fair report) are lost by malice or excessive publication; public officials and figures must prove actual malice, and private plaintiffs on public matters need at least negligence.
In plain English
Defamation law recognizes two types of privileges: absolute and qualified. Absolute privileges protect certain communications regardless of intent, while qualified privileges can be lost if the speaker acts with malice or publishes excessively; public figures must prove actual malice to win a defamation case, while private individuals must show at least negligence when the matter is of public concern.
Worked example
A newspaper publishes a story about a mayor's alleged misconduct based on a leaked police report. The mayor, a public figure, sues for defamation but cannot prove that the newspaper acted with actual malice. The court dismisses the case, ruling in favor of the newspaper due to the privilege of reporting on public officials.
Memory hook
Malice makes qualified privileges vanish; public figures need proof to win.
The trap
Exams often confuse students by mixing up the standards for public figures and private individuals, leading to mistakes in identifying the required proof of malice or negligence.
How examiners test it
Questions typically present a scenario involving a defamation claim and require candidates to analyze the type of privilege, the status of the plaintiff, and the necessary proof of malice or negligence.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.