Libel as a Cause of Action in Alaska

Libel is a written form of defamation that has the potential to cause lasting harm to reputation because words in print or other fixed mediums can be widely shared and preserved. Under Alaska law, the rules for libel follow the broader principles of defamation but apply specifically to written or published statements. Courts in Alaska have clarified the circumstances under which libel arises and the elements a plaintiff must establish to succeed in a claim.

A False and Defamatory Statement

The first element of a libel claim requires a statement that is both false and defamatory. A statement is defamatory if it tends to damage a person’s reputation, expose them to contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or lower their standing in the community. Crucially, the statement must be false. Even damaging comments cannot form the basis of libel if they are true. Courts also emphasize that the words must be understood as referring to the plaintiff. If the statement does not reasonably identify the plaintiff, it cannot satisfy this element.

An Unprivileged Publication to a Third Party

For libel to occur, the statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. This requirement is known as publication. It is not enough for a defamatory statement to exist in private notes or conversations that no one else hears. Publication occurs when the words are written, filed, distributed, or otherwise made available to others. For example, when an affidavit containing defamatory material is written and then picked up by the press, or when a press release is distributed to reporters, the publication requirement is satisfied. Alaska courts make clear that the wrongful act of libel arises not merely when the statement is written but when it is shared with others.

Fault Amounting at Least to Negligence

The third element focuses on the defendant’s state of mind. A plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with fault that amounts to at least negligence. Negligence means the defendant failed to take reasonable care in checking whether the statement was true before publishing it. In cases involving public officials or public figures, a higher standard may apply, requiring proof that the defendant acted with actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. For private individuals, however, negligence is generally enough to establish this element.

Actionability Per Se or Proof of Special Harm

The fourth element recognizes two possible paths. Certain statements are considered actionable per se, meaning they are presumed harmful without the need to prove actual damages. These include statements that accuse someone of a crime, suggest dishonesty, or directly harm a person’s profession. In other cases, the plaintiff must prove special harm, which refers to specific losses, such as loss of employment, financial injury, or measurable damage caused by the publication. This distinction ensures that especially harmful statements are taken seriously while still requiring proof when the defamatory nature is less direct.

Timing of the Cause of Action

Alaska courts have also clarified when a libel cause of action arises. The law holds that simply writing defamatory words is not enough. Those words must be read or understood by others before liability attaches. The cause of action accrues at the time of publication, such as when a press release is distributed or a document is filed and accessed by others. It does not matter if the plaintiff learns about the libel much later, because the legal wrong occurs at the moment others receive and understand the defamatory content.

Conclusion

Libel as a cause of action in Alaska is grounded in four essential elements: a false and defamatory statement, publication to a third party without privilege, fault amounting at least to negligence, and either inherent actionability or proof of special harm. The law also makes clear that liability arises only when others actually read or hear the defamatory material, not simply when it is written. By structuring the rules this way, Alaska courts balance the protection of reputation with the need for open communication, ensuring that false written statements that harm individuals are subject to accountability.

Find the Law

“Slander and libel are both forms of defamation. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 568 (1977).

To create liability for defamation there must be:
(a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another;
(b) an unprivileged publication to a third party;
(c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
(d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.” McAdoo v. Diaz, 884 P.2d 1385, 1391 (1994).

“As the court observed in Rutherford v. Johnson, 250 Cal.App.2d 316, 58 Cal.Rptr. 546 (Cal.App. 1967), in discussing defamatory statements contained in affidavits filed in a prior case, “[a] cause of action ordinarily arises when the wrongful act is committed,” and “[t]he wrong alleged here would arise when defendant filed an allegedly defamatory affidavit which a newspaper might publish and thus disseminate the defamation.” Id. 58 Cal.Rptr. at 548 n. 1. In Munafo v. Helfand, 140 F. Supp. 234, 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1956), where the libel count arose from a press release issued by the defendant at a press conference where reporters were assembled, the court said, “Of course the delivery of the release to the newspapermen was publication in and of itself.” (Footnote omitted.) . . . .” McCutcheon v. State, 746 P.2d 461, 466 (1987).

“The mere speaking or writing of defamatory words, it is well settled . . . is not actionable unless such words are heard or read and understood by persons other than the defamed; hence, the cause of action accrues only upon the satisfaction of this condition. The fact that the person defamed had no knowledge of the defamation, until shortly before the action is brought, is of no consequence.” McCutcheon v. State, 746 P.2d 461, 466 (1987).