The standard relevant in most defamation cases is recklessness, not negligence.

I'm not a lawyer, do I can't say with much confidence what most "defamation cases" are.

But LII at least suggests that the law as written, is about negligence: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

EDIT: According to LII on libel: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel, there seems to be different awards for negligence, recklessness, and malice. Negligence is capped at actual injury, while recklessness and above can have punitive damages.

EDIT: Alex Jones's $965M penalty here is likely punitive? (I don't know for sure), which suggests that it was at least of the reckless level and proven so in court?

(1) No, again, the damages announced today are compensatory, not punitive.

(2) If we're talking about the "actual malice" standard, then the standard is recklessness, not negligence.

(3) None of that matters here, because Jones lost the trial by default (the evidence would have clearly shown Jones to have met the actual malice standard, but it's a moot point).

Thanks for your clarifications.

> (2) If we're talking about the "actual malice" standard, then the standard is recklessness, not negligence.

My understanding is that "actual malice" only applies to public figures. Not private figures?

EDIT: I should note that I'm working off of roughly high-school journalism + high school law levels of analysis here. I recognize I'm no expert in this subject, but we were forced to study this topic in my Journalism class before we were allowed to publish the school newspaper. I can believe it if my teacher was being extra-conservative with regards to the subjects we were allowed to cover.

Jones lawyers attempted to claim that the Sandy Hook parents were in fact public figures (again, this is all mooted by Jones eventual default of the defamation cases themselves; the conduct standards we're talking about apply pretty much entirely to the question of whether you're culpable in the first place, not what the damages are.)

Gotcha.

I haven't followed the full details of this case specifically. And it seems like there's multiple different cases of defamation, and my own memories could be getting mixed up between them.

Good to discuss these various details in any case. Reckless vs negligence (and other such details) are very important to understand the case.

Hm, I'm not sure if that's true or not, but I think a journalist publishing false news stories would be recklessness anyway, not negligence.

Negligence is "shoulda known better". Recklessness is "did know better". It's significantly harder to prove recklessness.

As I understand that’s not correct. Recklessness is “I did something I knew I shouldn’t have done” and negligence is “I didn’t do something I knew I should have done”.