over allegedly false fact-checking "charging [Owens] with spreading misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic on the internet in 'an attempt to downplay the severity' of the pandemic."
So says the Minnesota Court of Appeals, as to a "harassment restraining order."
He seems open to materially increasing Internet service and content providers' liability for libels posted by their users, and based on other user misconduct.
A good illustration of the modern rule, which allows some permanent injunctions against repeating specific statements found to be libelous at trial—but only after such a finding on the merits.
The injunction, the court held, is an unconstitutional prior restraint.
An interesting decision, on a motion for default judgment.
Under the Westfall Act, the Justice Department can generally take over the defense of many such cases—and then get them dismissed.
Plaintiffs claimed that defendants had libeled them to foreign officials—but didn't have enough evidence that the defendants had actually said anything to those officials.
There is enough evidence that the Times knew their allegations were false (or at least were likely false) to go to the jury.
When can libel plaintiffs, suing over allegedly false claims of sexual misconduct, sue pseudonymously? When can defendants defend pseudonymously?
So holds a federal court, quite correctly; of course, the same is true about any religious group, racial group, or other such large group.
An interesting decision in former AP journalist Charles Ganske's lawsuit against former Member of Parliament Louise Mensch, with allegations of Russian bots and Tweeting frenzies thrown in for good measure.
Bonus: We learn that calling a doctor "a real tool" isn't libelous, either.
The legally strange dimension: A claim that the magazine article author sexually harassed the subject of her article, apparently by "seek[ing] inappropriate personal and romantic intimacy with Plaintiff."
The suit was based on an Esquire article about an Iowa farm run by members of Congressman Nunes' family.
Or, Virginia is for lovers, not libel tourists.
Trump's Tweet ("A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!") was opinion, and thus not actionable.
An interesting decision stemming from a dispute about whether the Spamhaus Project properly placed DatabaseUSA.com on a blocklist.
When can libel plaintiffs, suing over allegedly false claims of sexual misconduct, sue pseudonymously? When can defendants defend pseudonymously?
Defendant, a local mayor and sheriff's deputy, tweeted about Castile's girlfriend (who had gotten a settlement from local government entities), "She needs to come off County and State Aid now that she has some cash. It'll be gone in 6 months on crack cocaine."
So a Second Circuit panel just held.
Noted political publicist Trevor FitzGibbon (who had represented Julian Assange) sued whistleblower lawyer Jesselyn Radack (who had represented Edward Snowden) -- a second time; now there's a second settlement.
The ex-students had accused the professors (at the City University of New York) of sexual assault and other misconduct.
holds the Second Circuit in a case rejecting a libel lawsuit over a blog post headline.
Straka loses on his discrimination, cyberbullying, defamation, and breach of contract claims.
Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the defendant didn't just create the list as a platform for others, but herself posted material about him -- though whether plaintiff ultimately prevails will depend on what discovery reveals.
Rep. Devin Nunes can't hold Twitter liable for allegedly defamatory posts by Twitter user:
"Defendant's Yelp post about plaintiff is reasonably and best understood to be, simply, name-calling."
"Even if past [mentally distressing] speech that an offender made to a person ... could be considered ... integral to the criminal conduct of menacing by stalking [and thus unprotected], we do not believe that this principle may be applied categorically to future speech ... directed to others."
An interesting illustration of the qualified privilege that many courts recognize in such cases.
Fortunately, the Michigan Court of Appeals has just reversed that injunction.
"The Court's belief in the veracity of Wright's testimony dwindled while the trial progressed, as evidence of her inconsistent and questionable conduct was revealed piece by piece.... She lied about her advanced degrees. She signed e-mails as Dr. Wright when she is not a doctor. Her testimony and medical records conflicted time and time again ...."
But permanent injunctions after a full trial on the merits might be a different story.
of dissecting each of the sixteen bullet points illustrates the deficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint."
An important First Amendment holding in a factually fascinating case, which involves an alleged breach of contract, a World War II Medal of Honor, a dispute over a history book, and a discussion of anti-libel injunctions.
But other courts in the Ninth Circuit have categorically said that such injunctions are unconstitutional—the law remains quite unclear.
Not a great thing to see in an appellate opinion, if you claimed that reviewing a court order shows that you should win.
"Even the most dedicated patent lawyer would have difficulty mustering 'hatred' for a computer user who inadvertently violated a patent."
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
