Arizona Defamation: The Four-Pronged Test

In Arizona, defamatory statements:

1. Are False;
2. Cause damage to the plaintiff’s reputation or integrity;
3. Are shared publicly;
4. Are distributed recklessly or with actual malice.

Arizona Defamation Law Explained: Celebrities, Teachers, Elected Officials, Sheriffs, and Student Body Members Must Meet A Higher Standard of Proof

Under United States defamation law, federal statutes differentiate between public and private persons. Public figure plaintiffs must prove actual malice to win slander and libel lawsuits. Private citizens must only meet the “negligence” standard.

In Arizona, government officials qualify as public persons for defamation lawsuits if the issue is connected to their public-facing roles. In the past, teachers, FAA inspectors, sheriffs, deputies, and even a student-body member have been considered public figures in service of an Arizona defamation lawsuit.

Celebrities, including local celebrities, are customarily considered public persons when it comes to slander and libel lawsuits in Arizona.

All-Purpose Public Figures v. Limited-Purpose Public Figures

Arizona defamation law defines an all-purpose public figure as someone with:

“Such pervasive fame or notoriety that he [or she] becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts.”

The Arizona Supreme Court established that a limited-purpose public figure is an individual who “voluntarily injects [themselves] or is drawn into a particular public controversy.”

However, an individual “is not automatically transformed into a public figure just by becoming involved in or associated with a matter that attracts public attention,” instead, “the person must voluntarily assume a position that invites attention.”

In Arizona, being in an advertising campaign doesn’t automatically qualify an individual as a public figure.

Famous Folks and Some Government Employees Must Prove that the Defendant Knowingly Lied

When actual malice factors in a case, the claimant must prove that the defendant:

1. Knowingly or recklessly made, said, or wrote a false statement of fact;
2. Communicated it to a third party;
3. Which caused damage to the plaintiff;

Arizona Defamation Defenses

Truth

Truth is a common defamation defense in Arizona.

What about slightly inaccurate statements? They typically don’t amount to “falsity,” especially if the contested statement is substantially true. For example, the chance of winning a defamation lawsuit because someone said you stole $20,000 when, in fact, you stole $15,000, are between slim and none.

Opinion & Fair Comment

Opinion and fair comment are also acceptable defenses. If, however, the plaintiff proves actual malice, then an opinion and fair comment argument can be defeated.

Fair Report Privilege

The fair report privilege, while not often used, is also a valid defense under Arizona defamation law. It’s a complex parameter. Generally speaking, though, its aim is to protect journalists who are given bad information but had every reason to believe it was accurate.

Wire Service Defense

The “wire service defense” is also another legal theory that has been used to defeat Arizona defamation charges. For example, if a television affiliate broadcasts a show, but had no hand in developing or planning the program, they may not be held liable in an Arizona court.

These aren’t the only defamation defenses available in Arizona’s courts. The list is too long to print and the possibilities are case-specific. To find out your defamation defense options, speak to an Arizona slander and libel lawyer.

Single Publication Rule in Arizona

Arizona adheres to the single-publication rule (for both broadcast and print media), meaning:

“any form of mass communication or aggregate publication . . . is a single communication and can give rise to only one action for libel.”

When a case involves the Internet, however, the rules slightly vary. For example, if you publish the same defamatory content on 15 different websites, you can be charged for each instance, since each website constitutes a different media outlet.

Per Se and Per Quod Defamation in Arizona

Arizona recognizes both per se slander and libel, in addition to per quod slander and libel. Per se is the legal standard in which the damage caused by slander and libel is presumed; per quod is when the plaintiff must prove what damages were caused by the defamatory act.

Allowable Damages

Arizona judges and juries can consider the following things when deciding on a damage award:

1. Reputation Impairment
2. Impairment of Community Standing or Future Standing
3. Emotional Distress
4. Humiliation
5. Inconvenience
6. Anxiety and Future Anxiety
7. Monetary Loss

Punitive damages are also allowed in slander and libel lawsuits.

Sometimes, A Retraction Is All It Takes

In Arizona, if a defaming party is a print, telephonic or broadcast outlet, damages may be limited to a retraction or correction, in cases that do not involve a public figure. If the correction isn’t made within a certain time frame (usually 20 days), then plaintiffs can seek punitive damages if they can prove actual malice.

Arizona’s defamation statute of limitations is one year from publication; however, an exception exists when publication was purposefully left concealed from the plaintiff – like in incidents involving a confidential memo.  In those situations, the clock starts ticking at the date of discovery.

Miscellaneous Defamation Law Standards and Definitions in Arizona

• Libel is written defamation; slander is defamation by speech or another transitory form.
• Reckless disregard is when a person has serious doubts as to whether or not a statement is true, but publishes the information anyway.
• Negligence is defined as failure to act reasonably in a given circumstance. It can involve either action or inaction.
• In Arizona, if a defamatory statement is repeated by third-party, the person being charged can be held responsible in some cases.
• At least one federal court in Arizona has ruled that the retraction statute only applies to “libel actions based on newspaper or magazine articles” and does not apply to comments made on an online forum.