Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse In Cyberspace, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse In Cyberspace, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
UF Law Faculty Publications
John Doe has become a popular defamation defendant as corporations and their officers bring defamation suits for statements made about them in Internet discussion fora. These new suits are not even arguably about recovering money damages but instead are brought for symbolic reasons-some worthy, some not so worthy. If the only consequence of these suits were that Internet users were held accountable for their speech, the suits would be an unalloyed good. However, these suits threaten to suppress legitimate criticism along with intentional and reckless falsehoods, and existing First Amendment law doctrines are not responsive to the threat these suits …
School Principals And New York Times: Ohio's Narrow Reading Of Who Is A Public Official Or Public Figure, Andrew L. Turscak Jr.
School Principals And New York Times: Ohio's Narrow Reading Of Who Is A Public Official Or Public Figure, Andrew L. Turscak Jr.
Cleveland State Law Review
The United States Supreme Court has promulgated the rule that plaintiffs in defamation cases who are either public officials or public figures must prove that an alleged defamatory statement was made with "actual malice."' Those individuals who have achieved public official or public figure status have a higher burden of proof than ordinary plaintiffs; they must show that a defamatory falsehood was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The Supreme Court has not listed which government employees qualify for public official status, but it has provided some guidance. …
Silencing John Doe: Defamation And Discourse In Cyberspace, Lyrissa Lidsky
Silencing John Doe: Defamation And Discourse In Cyberspace, Lyrissa Lidsky
Faculty Publications
John Doe has become a popular defamation defendant as corporations and their officers bring defamation suits for statements made about them in Internet discussion fora. These new suits are not even arguably about recovering money damages but instead are brought for symbolic reasons — some worthy, some not so worthy. If the only consequence of these suits were that Internet users were held accountable for their speech, the suits would be an unalloyed good. However, these suits threaten to suppress legitimate criticism along with intentional and reckless falsehoods, and existing First Amendment law doctrines are not responsive to the threat …