New Hampshire
How Burns v. Associated Press applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Remedies.
New Hampshire recognizes the principles of defamation as outlined in Burns v. Associated Press, particularly concerning the importance of a plaintiff's reputation. Remedies for defamation in New Hampshire focus on compensatory damages, particularly where damages to reputation and emotional distress are concerned.
In New Hampshire, plaintiffs in defamation cases must prove that the statements made were false, damaging, and made with actual malice for public figures or negligence for private individuals.
The court held that a newspaper's reporting on a public official was protected under the First Amendment, but clarified that false statements could be actionable if proven to be made with actual malice.
The court ruled that the standard for defamation requires a degree of fault and that private individuals have a lower burden of proof than public figures.
The ruling emphasized the necessity for plaintiffs to demonstrate specific harm to their reputation to recover damages.
New Hampshire law aligns closely with the federal standards established under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan regarding actual malice but allows for a slightly lower threshold for private individuals in defamation cases. Both jurisdictions require proof of falsehood and damages, but New Hampshire’s approach can include non-economic damages more prominently than some federal standards suggest.
Aspects of defamation law derived from Burns v. Associated Press may appear on the New Hampshire bar exam, particularly concerning the standards of fault and types of damages available.