First Amendment Commons^™

Ambiguity In The Realm Of Defamation: Rhetorical Hyperbole Or Provable Falsity? - Gorilla Coffee, Inc. V. New York Times Co., Tiffany Frigenti

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hustler V. Falwell: Worst Case In The History Of The World, Maybe The Universe, John M. Kang

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Corporate Criticism On The Internet: The Fine Line Between Anonymous Speech And Cybersmear, Scot Wilson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rescuing The Dignitary Torts From The Constitution, Cristina Carmody Tilley

Faculty Publications

The rights of individuals to recover for dignitary torts has been withering for the past forty years, since the Supreme Court constitutionalized the state common law tort of defamation in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964. The Court announced in that case that the First Amendment required it to impose high standards for individual defamation claims in order to protect robust speech. As that principle has taken hold, it has in effect squeezed the rights of individuals to recover for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as defamation. Just last Term, the Court held …

Defamation In Good Faith: An Argument For Restating The Defense Of Qualified Privilege, A.G. Harmon

Barry Law Review

Since the 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the standard for proving defamation has often proven insurmountable to public figure plaintiffs who claim their reputations have been hurt through libel or slander. But, the standard can prove equally insurmountable to “private figure” plaintiffs when a qualified, or “conditional,” privilege applies. Such privileges, intended to further the social policy of candor on certain proscribed occasions, can be claimed regarding otherwise questionable conversations as long as the dialogue is made: 1) in good faith; 2) about a subject in which the speaker has an interest or duty; 3) within …

Cohen V. Google, Inc., Eirik Cheverud

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Opinions, Implications, And Confusions, Leonard M. Niehoff

Articles

The law of defamation is haunted by ancient common law principles, such as the distinction between libel per se and libel per quad, that contribute nothing to our current jurisprudence beyond providing opportunities for misunderstanding and perplexity. Unfortunately, more contemporary doctrines have further complicated the field by sowing fresh confusions. This article explores two such doctrines-the principle that a defamation claim cannot rest upon an opinion and the principle that a defamation claim can rest upon unstated implications- and suggests that there are troublesome contradictions both within them and between them. In short, this article respectfully proposes that these two …

Reviving Slander, Cristina Carmody Tilley

Faculty Publications

Roman law treated differently speech restricted to small, closed communities and speech within or among large, permeable communities. Intracommunity speech was subject to unlimited tort consequences, while intercommunity speech was subject to central government regulation. As English speech law evolved, slander rules governing spoken speech became a convenient proxy for intracommunity speech regulation, while libel rules governing written speech became a convenient proxy for intercommunity speech. In American law, the conceptual collapse of slander and libel meant that constitutional limits designed to lift central government regulation of intercommunity speech perhaps inadvertently vitiated tort consequences for intracommunity speech. The Supreme Court's …

Communication Indecency: Why The Communications Decency Act, And The Judicial Interpretation Of It, Has Led To A Lawless Internet In The Area Of Defamation, Colby Ferris

Barry Law Review

First, this article explores how law of defamation has been applied in the brick and mortar world, and how those same principles were applied to the cyber world. Next it looks at Congress’s legislation of defamation law on the Internet, and how that legislation has been applied in court. Finally, it evaluates the changing attitude toward that legislation, and changes Congress should consider making.

When Is Religious Speech Outrageous?: Snyder V. Phelps And The Limits Of Religious Advocacy, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution affords great protection to religiously motivated speech. Religious liberty would mean little if it did not mean the right to profess and practice as well as to believe. But are there limits beyond which religious speech loses its constitutional shield? Would it violate the First Amendment to subject a religious entity to tort liability if its religious profession causes emotional distress? When is religious speech outrageous?

These are vexing questions, to say the least; but the United States Supreme Court will take them up next term—and it will do so in a factual context that has generated as …

In The Matter Of Ottinger V. Non-Party The Journal News, Daniel Haier

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Free Speech And Civil Liability, Neil M. Richards, Daniel J. Solove

Scholarship@WashULaw

One of the most important and unresolved quandaries of First Amendment jurisprudence involves when civil liability for speech will trigger First Amendment protections. When speech results in civil liability, two starkly opposing rules are potentially applicable. Since New York Times v. Sullivan, the First Amendment requires heightened protection against tort liability for speech, such as defamation and invasion of privacy. But in other contexts involving civil liability for speech, the First Amendment provides virtually no protection. According to Cohen v. Cowles, there is no First Amendment scrutiny for speech restricted by promissory estoppel and contract. The First Amendment rarely requires …

Long Live The Lie Bill!, Lucila I. Van Dam

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

What successful defamation plaintiffs typically desire and doctrinally deserve is to have their reputations restored. Presently, however, a plaintiff who has established that she was defamed by the defendant is entitled only to an award of damages, which does nothing to restore reputation. This Note proposes that in addition to a damages award, courts-- if they are to take seriously their obligation to compensate the plaintiff-- should order the defendant to retract the defamatory statement. Contrary to the prevailing view, this Note argues that the proposed retraction order does not jeopardize the First Amendment guarantee of free expression.

Confronting The Limits Of The First Amendment: A Proactive Approach For Media Defendants Facing Liability Abroad, Michelle A. Wyant

San Diego International Law Journal

This Article confronts the limits this issue imposes on the First Amendment in four parts. Part I described the potential for conflicting defamation laws and forum shopping to undermine the American media's speech protections in the context of the Internet and global publications and outlines the Article's overall method of analysis. Part II first orients these conflicting defamation laws with respect to their development from the common law. It then frames them in terms of the underlying structural and policy differences that have produced their substantive divergence. This frame provides the analytical perspective through which this Article examines the varying …

Deus Ex Machina And The Unfulfilled Promise Of New York Times V. Sullivan: Applying The Times For All Seasons, Joseph H. King Jr.

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of The Press Box: Classifying High School Athletes Under The Gertz Public Figure Doctrine, Jonathan Deem

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defamation Of Public Figures: North American Contrasts, Adrienne Stone

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defamation, Free Speech, And Democratic Governance, Russell L. Weaver, David F. Partlett

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction, Russell L. Weaver, David F. Partlett

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech, Reputation, And The Canadian Balance, Eugénie Brouillet

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Origins Of The Public Figure Doctrine In First Amendment Defamation Law, Catherine Hancock

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Transnational Communication And Defamatory Speech: A Case For Establishing Norms For The Twenty-First Century, David Goldberg

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Relative Access To Corrective Speech: A New Test For Requiring Actual Malice, Aaron Perzanowski

Articles

This Article reexamines the First Amendment protections provided by the public figure doctrine. It suggests that the doctrine is rooted in a set of out-dated assumptions regarding the media landscape and, as a result, has failed to adapt in a manner that accounts for our changing communications environment.

The public figure doctrine, which imposes the more rigorous actual malice standard of fault on defamation plaintiffs who enjoy greater access to mass media, was constructed in an era defined by one-to-many communications media. Newspapers, broadcasters, and traditional publishers exhausted the Court's understanding of the means of communicating with mass audiences. As …

Judging Reputation: Realism And Common Law In Justice White's Defamation Jurisprudence, John C.P. Goldberg

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Corporate Cybersmear: Employers File John Doe Defamation Lawsuits Seeking The Identity Of Anonymous Employee Internet Posters, Margo E. K. Reder, Christine Neylon O'Brien

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Communications systems are now wide open and fully accessible, with no limits in range, scope or geography. Targeted audiences are accessible with pinpoint accuracy. Messages reach millions of readers with one click. There is a chat room for everyone. Most importantly, there is no limit on content. Therefore, employees can register their dissatisfaction by posting a message in a chat room. Moreover, the identity of the posting employee is not easily discoverable due to anonymous and pseudonymous communications capabilities. The nature of these online messages is qualitatively different from real-world communications. By way of example, newspapers have a responsibility regarding …

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.

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

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 …

Freedom Of Speech - How Does The New York State Constitution Compare To The United States Constitution?, Eileen Kaufman, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Speech And Press

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.