Bobby Wilson v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., et al.

Is a per se false publication that was proven fab­ ricated solely by the defendant sufficient proof alone of malice? Liability for the publication of information known to be false does not abridge freedom of speech or press. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153,171-72 (1979). It follows therefore, “that unless the publication in the instant case was privileged or qualifiedly privileged, the proof of publication carries the presumption of its falsity and of malice toward the plaintiff.” Roscoe v. Schoolitz, 105 Ariz. 310, 314 (1970).

If the libel defendants use their proven fabricated articles to engage in a vendetta to destroy a candidate’s reputation is that not sufficient proof of malice in and of itself and is no longer protected speech? The context of the libelous articles becomes important in determi­ nation of the existence of malice. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Rel. Comm’n, 413 U.S. 376 (1973). A