Decision N° 282-13-JP/19, issued by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. introduced the actual malice standard originated in the New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan case to analyze possible limitations to the right offreedom of speech. This standard applies in cases of publication of false and defamatory statement of facts on issues of public interest. The Constitutional Court ruled that persons involved in matters of public interest have at their disposal the mechanisms of reply and rectification to defend their reputation against the publication of information that they consider false, inaccurate or offensive; and, only if these mechanisms prove to be insufficient, they may file a civil complaint for defamation to claim compensation if they satisfy the actual malice standard. This article analyzes the origin of the actual malice standard in the New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan case to iden...

Decision N° 282-13-JP/19, issued by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. introduced the actual malice standard originated in the New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan case to analyze possible limitations to the right offreedom of speech. This standard applies in cases of publication of false and defamatory statement of facts on issues of public interest. The Constitutional Court ruled that persons involved in matters of public interest have at their disposal the mechanisms of reply and rectification to defend their reputation against the publication of information that they consider false, inaccurate or offensive; and, only if these mechanisms prove to be insufficient, they may file a civil complaint for defamation to claim compensation if they satisfy the actual malice standard. This article analyzes the origin of the actual malice standard in the New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan case to iden...

Decision N° 282-13-JP/19, issued by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. introduced the actual malice standard originated in the New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan case to analyze possible limitations to the right offreedom of speech. This standard applies in cases of publication of false and defamatory statement of facts on issues of public interest. The Constitutional Court ruled that persons involved in matters of public interest have at their disposal the mechanisms of reply and rectification to defend their reputation against the publication of information that they consider false, inaccurate or offensive; and, only if these mechanisms prove to be insufficient, they may file a civil complaint for defamation to claim compensation if they satisfy the actual malice standard. This article analyzes the origin of the actual malice standard in the New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan case to iden...