Minnesota courts have been entertaining defamation claims since before statehood. Over the years and through numerous decisions, those courts have developed a detailed framework for defamation law that covers the common law elements of defamation, permissible damages, and defenses, including qualified and absolute privileges. The Minnesota Constitution’s free press and speech provision provided little protection for freedom of speech and the press, as Jay Near and Howard Guilford learned in a stark lesson from the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Things changed significantly in 1964 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the first in a series of Supreme Court cases that imposed significant First Amendment limitations on the right to recover in defamation cases. Minnesota defamation law is now a swirl of common law and First Amendment rules.
Post–New York Times Co., plaintiffs seeking to recover for defamation must necessarily look over their shoulders to see which of the constitutional rules are following them. More than that, they must also consider Minnesota Supreme Court decisions applying the Supreme Court’s First Amendment limitations, sometimes as a matter of federal constitutional interpretation and sometimes adding a Minnesota twist to the First Amendment limitations.
Plaintiffs face an array of hurdles in defamation cases. They have the burden of proving the elements of the common law defamation claim, keeping in mind that the rules differ for libel and slander claims. They must overcome any applicable common law qualified privileges and will be barred if a common law absolute privilege applies. They must also overcome any relevant statutory limitations, including those imposed by the retraction statute, the newly enacted anti-SLAPP statute, and, in appropriate cases, the punitive damages statute. And finally, the plaintiff must overcome any First Amendment limitations on the right to recover.