Because public figures have greater access to the media and are assumed to have willingly stepped into the public eye, it is much more difficult for a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit. In other words, they must prove that the slanderer knew the statements were untrue but made them anyway, or that the slanderer made the comments without knowing whether or not they were true. Journalists and newspapers are often accused of libel or slander. If a newspaper prints a story with inaccuracies, but the reporter demonstrates in court that an innocent mistake led to the inclusion of inaccurate information, the newspaper is off the hook. However, if the plaintiff can prove that he or she gave the reporter reliable documentation that disputed the false claims and the journalist chose to include the libelous material anyway, the newspaper would be liable for defamation.
Truth is a complete defense to a defamation case.
If the damaging information is true, no libel or slander occurred. Truth can often be a matter of opinion, however, and the burden will be on the alleged slanderer to establish the truth of his or her statement. When the defendant is found to be acting in furtherance of the social good, the defendant is immune from a defamation suit. In a courtroom, statements made by lawyers, witnesses and other parties in a judicial proceeding are shielded from defamation laws. For example, if you're involved in a custody dispute, your ex-spouse can testify that you are a drug user, an alcoholic or a child abuser regardless of whether those statements are untrue without fear of being sued for slander.