"[B]oth parties exchanged these Snapchat videos while they were intoxicated and their judgment was impaired. Notwithstanding, the communications were private and intended to be jokes between close friends."
"[Defendant ex-employer's] request for all of [plaintiff's] communications containing language that is sexist or racist is overbroad."
The court does, however, leave open the possibility that the plaintiff can file an amended complaint that can go forward.
The court appears unmoved by the claim that an earlier ruling sent the "wrong message ... that people of color (all the plaintiffs are Latino) do not have a chance to get their day in this Honorable Court."
"No one likes being called names. But not every alleged insult gives rise to a lawsuit in federal court. Especially where Ms. Mai has alleged that she is so important as to be a public figure, yet failed to allege Ms. Elsaden made her allegedly defamatory statement with actual malice."
"[I]t is irrelevant that Defendant Def Con did not know at the time the Transparency Reports were published whether Hadnagy had or had not engaged in sexual misconduct. Rather, if the sexual misconduct implications were in fact true at the time the Transparency Reports were published, Def Con is shielded by the truth defense."
"After receiving their surrogate baby, the couple purportedly performed an at-home DNA test 'which showed that [the would-be father] was in no way related to the baby.'"
largely because the compensatory damages were just $1.
A federal magistrate judge flags the issue, though doesn't purport to resolve it.
Free speech experts say the takedown order is a clear example of unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment.
So holds the Florida Court of Appeal, rejecting the members' claim that they aren't subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. The majority doesn't discuss the substantive merits of the case.
Plus, does speech about a celebrity become "intentional infliction of emotional distress" when the celebrity is known to have been "trauma[tized]" by a violent crime?
Nunes and his family's farm can't sufficiently show damages, so the court doesn't have to reach any of the other elements of defamation.
and thus not actionable defamation, unless defendant "implies undisclosed facts by insinuating that the plaintiff" engaged in specific racist acts or made (undisclosed) racist statements.
But "[n]othing in Plaintiff's conclusory assertions suggest that Plaintiff could plead facts plausibly linking his identity with that of the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto."
One of many allegedly defamatory statements allegedly sent by a former summer intern at a financial company; the court holds a proposed preliminary injunction against future speech by defendant about plaintiff would be an unconstitutional prior restraint, but issues a narrower injunction.
A judge lets Loomer's defamation claim against Maher and HBO go forward.
Generally, when defendants made factual accusations based on what they said was personal knowledge, it's enough that plaintiff swear the statements are false, so it can be inferred that they are knowingly false. If that happens, it's usually up to the jury to decide who's telling the truth.
The lawsuit is brought by Jacki Pick against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, based on statement in Raffensperger's book, Integrity Counts.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
