Celebrities have a more difficult time winning a libel suit against a publisher than the average person.
Libel is generally defined as a statement of fact that is false and somehow damages the reputation of the person it refers to. However, determining that the statement is false, as well as to what degree the author or publisher of the statement should be held accountable, may be difficult because of United States laws regarding libel. The first amendment does not protect against willful and malicious attacks on an individual. It is a fine line publishers must walk in order to provide books that the public will find interesting and sweep up, while protecting themselves against lawsuits. A “tell-all” book, or one that purports to reveal details of a celebrity's private life, is generally a hot item, provided that the celebrity has a large audience. Embellishments and alterations to the truth are commonly suspected in these sorts of books because they make them more scandalous and thus more interesting to potential readers.
While most people may take the information presented in these books with a grain of salt, they are no less damaging to the celebrity's reputation and career if they present him or her in an unflattering light, such as alleging drug use or other illegal activities. Ultimately proving that they did not engage in such activities may not be enough to salvage their reputation or sue the publisher of the incorrect information. They must be able to speak to the publisher's intent. As long as the publisher can prove that they did not publish the material out of malice, with full knowledge of its falsehood, they may be protected. The burden of truth is higher for a celebrity seeking damages from a publisher than it is for a private individual who is not a public personality.
A private individual only needs to prove that the publisher was not thorough enough in their investigation into the facts. The issue at hand is negligence, with malice taking secondary importance. A vicious attack might net a larger award in a libel lawsuit, but isn't necessary to win the suit. A single news story or passage in a book could follow an individual throughout their life, causing irreparable damage to their reputation. A Google.com search of a person's name, a sort of layman's background check, could easily pull up such libelous information, permanently impairing the individual's ability to move forward.
Celebrities are offered less legal protection than private individuals in such a case because the increased media attention they receive is regarded as a consequence of their status. By stepping into the public eye they not only must expect more information to be published about them, but they are also given a platform to refute anything they believe to be false. A celebrity can make use of talk shows, magazines, and a whole host of other media outlets to strike back against claims that damage their reputation. Therefore, the disparity in legal protection is arguably justified because, while a lawsuit may be the only opportunity a private citizen has to officially and publicly clear their name, a celebrity has other methods of recourse.
Therefore, a book publisher, while not invincible, has a rather large shield of plausible deniability to hide behind. While it would be unethical to intentionally publish false information, the publisher may escape paying monetary damages, provided no one can prove that he had such knowledge or any substantial reason to suspect the information was false. When facing a major piece of information, such as allegations of child abuse, most people would find bending the truth to sell more copies to be morally reprehensible. However, references to legal but frowned upon behavior, may seem trifling to a publisher seeking to embellish a story. That is if he doesn't stop to consider whether such information would damage the celebrities appeal to any particular subset of their audience.
A reputable publisher must make every effort to establish the veracity of a piece of information before presenting it as fact in a publication. While they are afforded some addition protection regarding celebrities, it would be unethical to abuse that protection. While it may not always be a successful endeavor, attempting to weed fact from fiction is a noble goal. A publisher that can do so without compromising sales would be proof that strong ethics are good for business.
