Do all plaintiffs in tort claims for defamation have the same elements to prove their case?

Answer 1

No, not in every case. There are two major differences. One is where the statements made are privileged under the First Amendment and the other is where the defamation is considered defamation per se.

There is a First Amendment privilege governing statements made about public figures, especially statements by news sources. Ordinarily, malice on the part of the defamer is assumed if the statements are defamatory in nature. But in matters of public figures, the plaintiff has to prove actual malice. This requirement is designed to balance the interests of people in their right not to be defamed against the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.

Another difference is when the defamation constitutes "libel or slander per se." Certain statements like accusation of commission of a crime are considered libel/slander per se. That means it is assumed that the defamed person suffered some injury to reputation, so the plaintiff does not have to that his or her reputation actually suffered. In all other cases, a plaintiff must prove that injury.

Note that different states may have different standards as to what the formal elements of a defamation action are. Thus it is also possible that plaintiffs might have to prove different elements simply because of the particular state where the defamation occurred.