> > In general, though, if you can prove you made a valiant attempt to seek the truth you're more or less off the hook. With public officials generally malice must be shown to win a libel suit, but when dealing with private individuals simply failing to verify facts before stating them is enough.
>
> You'd think public officials would be held to a higher standard rather than a lower one.
>

I think I mis-stated this: it is much harder for you to libel a public official than a private one. The reason for this is that they are considered to be in the spot-light voluntarily. If they're government officials, too, the public enjoys a greater degree of freedom in criticizing them.

It's worth noting, however, that when an elected official is speaking on a legislative floor, their comments are generally immune to libel. Sort of weird, but the idea is that they should be free to speak their minds while debating legislation without fear of lawsuits. The same largely holds true for the testimony of witnesses in a court. This is particularly nice for reporters, since they are able to report what was said in these things without being sued for libel, generally (assuming the report was a fair and accurate one).

Stephen