Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Defamation 2.0, Cortelyou C. Kenney
Defamation 2.0, Cortelyou C. Kenney
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
There is a literal prohibition in the media bar that media lawyers cannot represent plaintiffs in suits for defamation. The stated principle behind this rule—a rule that can result in excommunication from the premier media law organization if it is violated—is that playing both sides of the defamation game is disloyal to traditional media actors because any chance of victory could inadvertently distort the law of defamation to increase the risk of frivolous suits against media outlets or other innocent third parties. But has the maxim finally gone too far?
Fueled by a new model where media profits are driven …
Fuoco V. Polisena, 244 A.3d 124 (R.I. 2021), David Marks
Fuoco V. Polisena, 244 A.3d 124 (R.I. 2021), David Marks
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Henry V. Media General Operations, Inc., 254 A.3d 822 (R.I. 2021), Stefanie D. Fischer
Henry V. Media General Operations, Inc., 254 A.3d 822 (R.I. 2021), Stefanie D. Fischer
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Gag With Malice, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
Gag With Malice, Shaakirrah R. Sanders
Washington and Lee Law Review
This Article brings agriculture privacy and other commercial gagging laws into the ongoing debate on the First Amendment actual malice rule announced in New York Times v. Sullivan. Despite a resurgence in contemporary jurisprudence, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have recently questioned the wisdom and viability of Sullivan, which originally applied actual malice to state law defamation claims brought by public officials. The Court later extended the actual malice rule to public figures, to claims for infliction of emotional distress, and—as discussed in this Article—to claims for invasion of privacy and to issues of public importance or concern.
United …