Defamation as a Cause of Action in Alaska

Defamation law in Alaska, as in other states, is meant to protect a person’s reputation from false statements that can cause harm. At the same time, the law recognizes the importance of free expression, and courts carefully balance those two interests. In Alaska, the elements of a defamation claim are clearly defined, and the courts have clarified when a statement can and cannot lead to liability.

A False and Defamatory Statement

The first element requires a statement that is both false and defamatory. A statement is defamatory if it has the tendency to harm a person’s reputation, expose them to public hatred or ridicule, or diminish the respect in which they are held. Importantly, the statement must be false. True statements, even if damaging to someone’s reputation, are not actionable. Courts also look at whether the recipient of the statement understood it as referring to the plaintiff. If no one could reasonably connect the statement to the plaintiff, then the element is not satisfied.

An Unprivileged Publication to a Third Party

For defamation to exist, the statement must be communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. This is called publication. A private remark told only to the plaintiff, no matter how offensive, is not defamation because it does not injure reputation in the eyes of others. The publication also must be unprivileged. Some settings, such as courtroom testimony or legislative debates, carry privileges that shield speakers from defamation liability. These protections exist to ensure that people can speak freely in certain contexts without fear of lawsuits.

Fault Amounting at Least to Negligence

The third element examines the defendant’s level of responsibility in making the statement. In Alaska, a plaintiff must show that the defendant was at least negligent, meaning the defendant failed to act with reasonable care in determining whether the statement was true or false before making it public. In some cases, particularly when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, a higher standard of fault may apply, such as actual malice, which requires showing that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Per Se Actionability or Special Harm

The final element distinguishes between statements that are automatically actionable, called defamation per se, and those that require proof of harm, known as defamation per quod. Certain statements, such as false accusations of a crime or false statements that harm someone’s profession, are considered so damaging that the law presumes harm to reputation without requiring proof of actual damages. In these cases, general damages may be awarded even if the plaintiff cannot show specific losses. In other cases, where the defamatory nature is less obvious, the plaintiff must prove actual harm, such as lost business opportunities or emotional distress tied to the statement.

Opinions and the First Amendment

Alaska courts also recognize the limits that the First Amendment places on defamation law. Pure expressions of opinion are not actionable. The United States Supreme Court has held that defamation actions cannot be based solely on opinions that do not assert or imply false facts. This rule reflects the value placed on free expression, ensuring that people can share views and ideas without constant fear of being sued, while still holding speakers accountable when they present falsehoods as facts.

Conclusion

Defamation as a cause of action in Alaska rests on four core elements: a false and defamatory statement, unprivileged publication to a third party, fault amounting to at least negligence, and either inherent actionability or proof of special harm. The law makes clear that truth and pure opinion cannot be the basis of liability, while also ensuring that reputations are protected from falsehoods. By treating certain statements as actionable per se and allowing damages without proof in those cases, Alaska law acknowledges the serious impact false statements can have on a person’s life.

Find the Law

“The elements of defamation are ‘(1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) the existence of either ‘per se’ action ability or special harm.’ It is also ‘necessary that the recipient of the defamatory communication understand it as intended to refer to the plaintiff.’” MacDonald v. Riggs, 166 P.3d 12 ( 2007).

“The common law rule that a pure expression of opinion may serve as the basis for a defamation action was rendered unconstitutional by recent United States Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment bars defamation actions if the allegedly defamatory statements are pure expressions of opinion, not implied or stated assertions of false fact. The Court recognized that ‘[t]he freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty — and thus a good unto itself — but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.’”  State v. Carpenter, 171 P.3d 41 (2007)

Under Alaska law general damages for defamation per se may be awarded without any proof of damages. In City of Fairbanks v. Rice, we noted that the superior court was correct in finding that statements that are defamatory per se ‘obviat[e] the need for proof of damages.’ Similarly, in Alaska Statebank v. Fairco this court upheld damages for a defamation case involving slander per se on the basis that ‘[p]roof of actual damages was . . . not necessary to support the award.’” MacDonald v. Riggs, 166 P.3d 12 (2017)