Navigating Defamation, Media, and Public Relations Issues - Public Company Update 2025 - Key Takeaways

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Adam

This presentation equips public company leaders and counsel to identify defamation and evaluate risk when inaccurate stories or statements appear in media or online platforms. It explains why falsity alone does not establish liability and reviews constitutional limits under the First Amendment, including recognized exceptions. The session outlines core defamation elements, then connects intent standards to public officials, public figures, and private individuals, including “actual malice” and negligence frameworks in media contexts.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryGeneral

FormatPDF

Pages34

Reading Time12 min

AccessFree to download

Overview

Topics of Discussion

Navigating Defamation Issues

Common Question

1st Amendment Exceptions

Case Example: Devin Nunes and Twitter Parodies

Parody & the First Amendment

Elements of Defamation

Intent in Media Cases

Navigating Defamation, Media, and Public Relations Issues Understanding and responding to media challenges in a digital world 2025 Public Company Update Aaron M. Saykin, Esq. January 2025 A L B A N Y + B U F F A L O + G R E E N S B O R O + H A C K E N S A C K + N E W Y O R K + P A L M B E A C H + R O C H E S T E R + S A R A T O G A S P R I N G S + T O R O N T O Overview 􀂃 Topics of Discussion o How to Identify Defamation o Online Platforms: Immunity from Responsibility, Content Licensing o Responding to the Media o Ethical Requirements for Attorneys Navigating Defamation Issues 􀂃 Common Question: 􀂃 A website/media company posted a story aboutus that includes false statements about our company and/or its officers. Can we sue them for defamation? 􀂃 Answer: 􀂃 Falsity alone is not enough. There are other, thornier elements of defamation. Navigating Defamation Issues 􀂃 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” o Exceptions: (1) Inciting lawlessness and “fighting words”; (2) Defamation; (3) Obscenity and child pornography; (4) Intellectual property of others (i.e., speech owned by others); (5) Commercial speech; and (6) Speech involving the government (as speaker, employer, regulator, etc.) Navigating Defamation Issues Headline on March 22, 2019: “Devin Nunes sues a sassy cow on Twitter, and she gains a herd of followers” 􀂃 U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) was heckled by 2 Twitter accounts:@Devin Nunes’ Cow and @Devin Nunes’ Mom. Navigating Defamation Issues 􀂃 Devin Nunes sues Twitter, one of its users, and the two accounts named after his mom and cow. The lawsuit was widely mocked, and several legal analysts predicted it would fail. 􀂃 Why? o Issue 1: There are certain legal protections for social media platforms like Twitter for comments posted by its users. [More to come on this topic…] 􀂃 Rep. Nunes argued that Twitter has a duty to police the comments. o Issue 2: The Twitter accounts seem to be parodies, especially Devin Nunes’Cow. Plus, much of the content seems like opinion. o What happened? We’ll see in a few minutes… Navigating Defamation Issues 􀂃 Parody & the First Amendment o The U. S. Supreme Court, and other appeals courts from several states, have issued rulings that offer protection for certain types of parody in defamation cases: o Major Case: Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 57 (1988)– “The Hustler ad parody (of Rev. Falwell) could not ‘reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [his] or actual events in which [he] participated.’” o Similar State Court Ruling: Frank v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 119 A.D.2d 252, 261-62 (2d Dep’t 1986)– “ in certain situations and under some circumstances, the authors of humorous language will be insulated from liability in defamation cases even where the comic attempt pokes fun at an identifiable individual. The line will be crossed, however, when humor is used in an attempt to disguise an intent to injure; at that point a jest no longer merits protection, because it ceases to be a jest.” Navigating Defamation Issues 􀂃 Elements of Defamation 1) Statement was false *(Parody / Opinion Exceptions – is the statement reasonably understood to be describing actual facts) 2) Defamatory statement (i.e., tendency to expose plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or disgrace) 3) Statement is “reasonably understood” to be about plaintiff 4) Statement was communicated (i.e., published or broadcasted) to someone other than the plaintiff 5) Statement was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff to suffer financial loss 6) Intent: Is plaintiff a public official or figure? Or is it a matter of public concern, or a matter of private c

FAQs

Can a company sue a website or media company for defamation when it posts false statements about the company or its officers?

Falsity alone is not enough. Defamation requires additional “thornier” elements beyond an inaccurate statement.

How does the First Amendment affect defamation claims in media and online contexts?

The First Amendment broadly protects speech and press, with exceptions that can include defamation. The discussion also emphasizes constitutional limits and how certain categories like parody may receive protection.

What intent standard applies depending on whether the subject is a public official, public figure, or private individual?

Public officials and public figures require “actual malice,” such as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. Private figures involve different standards depending on whether the matter is public concern (grossly irresponsible publication) or private matter (negligence in verifying accuracy).

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Adam