Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Plotting The Return Of An Ancient Tort To Cyberspace: Towards A New Federal Standard Of Responsibility For Defamation For Internet Service Providers, Christopher Butler
Plotting The Return Of An Ancient Tort To Cyberspace: Towards A New Federal Standard Of Responsibility For Defamation For Internet Service Providers, Christopher Butler
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Though the rapid development of the Internet has created a fertile ground for legal innovation, more often than not legislators and courts have sought to address this relatively new medium by attempting to squeeze it into precedents and paradigms better suited to older forms of communication, technology, and media. Part I of this article looks back at the courts' initial efforts at addressing defamation via the Internet. From the start the courts attempted to fit the role of the ISP into the common law's categorizing of print media as either "publishers" or "distributors" of information. One court's misstep in overextending …
(Re)Defining Public Officials And Public Figures: A Washington State Primer, Kate M. Adams
(Re)Defining Public Officials And Public Figures: A Washington State Primer, Kate M. Adams
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment reflects an attempt to distill the Supreme Court's thematic intent from over thirty years of defamation case law. The Comment then evaluates current definitions of public officials and public figures to determine whether they are consistent with the theme. Washington courts have already addressed these definitions, but this Comment posits that Washington law on public officials and public figures is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's intent and suggests alternative defining tests for public officials and public figures.
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. …