Final answer:
A plaintiff does not always need to show actual injury to reputation to recover for defamation, especially if a private individual. Public officials and figures, however, must demonstrate actual malice, meaning the defamer knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Step-by-step explanation:
To recover for defamation, a plaintiff does not always have to show that their reputation was actually injured. In the case of private individuals, damage to reputation may be presumed. However, for public officials or public figures, the constitutional guarantees under the First Amendment hold to a higher standard.
According to the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case, a public official must prove that the statement was made with 'actual malice' - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false. This implies that there must be proof of malicious intent or a reckless lack of concern for the truth to constitute defamation of character and recover damages.
For public figures to succeed in a defamation lawsuit, they must demonstrate the defamatory statements were not only untrue but also published with malice or reckless disregard. This is different from private individuals, where the threshold for proving defamation is typically lower.
States are permitted by the Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. case to set their standards for liability as long as fault is shown and, if the standard is less than actual malice, only actual damages may be claimed.
The defendant's reputation does not necessarily have to be tarnished in the eyes of the majority of the community. The focus is rather on whether the defendant can prove the statement was issued with actual malice or not. The courts also differentiate the protection of free speech in matters such as political speech, and have established that defamation, along with obscenity, is not protected by the First Amendment.