Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Irving V. Penguin: Historians On Trial And The Determination Of Truth Under English Libel Law, Dennise Mulvihill
Irving V. Penguin: Historians On Trial And The Determination Of Truth Under English Libel Law, Dennise Mulvihill
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Re Abt Building Products Canada Ltd And Cep, Loc 434 (Shatford), Innis Christie
Re Abt Building Products Canada Ltd And Cep, Loc 434 (Shatford), Innis Christie
Innis Christie Collection
Employee grievance alleging breach of the Collective Agreement between the parties effective March 9, 1998 — December 15, 2002 in that the Employer breached Article 3 and Appendix "C" of the Collective Agreement by suspending the Grievor for five days without sufficient cause and breached the Collective Agreement by defaming the Grievor. The Grievor seeks reimbursement for the five days of wages and consequent benefits lost, and damages and a written apology for defamation.
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 …
Private Concerns Of Private Plaintiffs: Revisiting A Problematic Defamation Category, Nat Stern
Private Concerns Of Private Plaintiffs: Revisiting A Problematic Defamation Category, Nat Stern
Missouri Law Review
Part I of the Article traces the route to the Court's decision to add the public/private concern inquiry to the complex4 body of defamation doctrine, as well as the potential impact of this distinction beyond the context in which it was first promulgated. Part II reviews courts' efforts to categorize defamatory speech in a rational way, seeking to demonstrate that this goal has inevitably eluded them. From a broader perspective, Part III examines the Court's longstanding ambivalence toward elevating speech of a presumably public nature over other expression. Against this backdrop, the Court's decision to distinguish between public and private …
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 …
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 …
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. …
(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.