These are business law question

(1)The ruling in the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan was that a public official can win a defamation case

a. without proving the defendant knew his or her statement was false.

b. only by proving the defendant's actual malice.

c. without proving the defendant acted with reckless disregard of the truth.

d.only by proving the defendant has a history of reckless behavior.

(2)Which of the following is a valid defense to a defamation claim?

a. The statement was only an opinion.

b. The statement was not slanderous only libelous.

c. The statement did not cause any grave injury.

d. The First Amendment guarantees the absolute right to free speech.

(3)Public officials can win a defamation case only by proving the defendant's actual malice.

a.True

b.False

Answer-:

1.

Option(B)

Clarification-:

Correct option is B ,As v. Sullivan call of the us Supreme Court ruling that the liberty of speech protections within the amendment to the U.S. Constitution limit the flexibility public officers to sue for defamation and can't recover damages for libel while not proving that a press release was created with actual malice outlined that it had been false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it had been false or no

2.

Option(A)

Clarification-:

Correct option is A,As Defamation could be a false accusation of person to wreck the name of alternative person or party. it's the untruth of actual truth. someone or party creating a denigrative statement will be a privileged or a standard person wherever statement is just the opinion.

3.

Option(True)

Clarification-:

Correct option is True ,As public officers cannot recover damages for libel while not proving that was created with actual malice that it had been false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it had been false or not