Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Duty Not To Continue Distributing Your Own Libels, Eugene Volokh
The Duty Not To Continue Distributing Your Own Libels, Eugene Volokh
Notre Dame Law Review
Say something I wrote about you online (in a newspaper, a blog, or a social media page) turns out to be false and defamatory. Assume I wasn’t culpable when I first posted it, but now I’m on notice of the error.
Am I liable for defamation if I fail to remove or correct the erroneous material? Surprisingly, courts haven’t settled on an answer, and scholars haven’t focused on the question. Libel law is stuck in a time when newspapers left the publisher’s control as soon as they are printed—even though now an article or a post can be seen on …
Is The New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective, Geoffrey Bennett, Russell L. Weaver
Is The New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective, Geoffrey Bennett, Russell L. Weaver
Journal Articles
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the United States Supreme Court extended First Amendment guarantees to defamation actions. Many greeted the Court's decision with joy. After the decision, many years elapsed during which "there were virtually no recoveries by public officials in libel actions."
The most important component of the New York Times decision was its "actual malice" standard. This standard provided that, in order to recover against a media defendant, a public official must demonstrate that the defendant acted with "malice." In other words, the official must show that the defendant knew that the defamatory statement was false …
New York Times Co V Sullivan: The 'Actual Malice' – Standard And Editorial Decision-Making, Geoffrey Bennett, Russel L. Weaver
New York Times Co V Sullivan: The 'Actual Malice' – Standard And Editorial Decision-Making, Geoffrey Bennett, Russel L. Weaver
Journal Articles
In an effort to explore conflicting views of the New York Times decision, this article compares how the British media functions under Britain's more restrictive defamation laws with how the US media functions under the actual malice standard. It does so based on interviews with reporters, editors, defamation lawyers, and others involved in the media in an effort to understand how they decide which stories to publish, and to gain some understanding of how libel laws affect editorial decision-making.