DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00104.png

Case 18-2868, Document 276, 08/09/2019, 2628224, Page55 of 77 in an interview in New York with ABC to promote the charity and to get her mission out to the public. /d. at 28. B. Plaintiff carries the burden of proving actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964), the Supreme Court recognized that our country has made a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” The overriding importance of that commitment led to the Court’s holding that “neither factual error nor defamatory content, nor a combination of the two, sufficed to remove the First Amendment shield,” Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 535 (2001), from speech relating to public officials and public figures. See, e.g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974). Under the First Amendment of the Constitution and Article I, Section 8, of the New York Constitution, in defamation actions by public officials and public figures and in defamation actions concerning matters of public concern, the plaintiff must prove that the allegedly defamatory statement was made with “actual malice.” See, e.g., id.; Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 716-77 (1986); Huggins v. Moore, 726 N.E.2d 456, 460 (N.Y. 1999); McGill v. Parker, 582 N.Y.S.2d 91, 97 (App. Div. 1992). As the Supreme Court has noted, the term “actual malice” can be confusing because in the First Amendment context “it has nothing to do with bad motive or ill will.” Harte-Hanks Communic ’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 666 n.7 (1989). Instead proof of actual malice requires evidence that the publication contains a “material”** false statement of fact that was made “with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or > 4ir Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, 134 S. Ct. 852, 861 (2014) (“minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as ‘the substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge be justified’”’) (internal quotations and brackets omitted). 48