Avenatti v. Fox News Getting Funner (at Least for Law Geeks Like Me)
Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas has been appointed to hear the case.
Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas has been appointed to hear the case.
I've been seeing many such libel lawsuits recently, though only a few have gone so far as to yield a verdict for the libel plaintiff.
though the case can be refiled in state court.
If this decision stands, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have a chance to reconsider the N.Y. Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" requirement in this case (not that it was likely to in any event).
Twitter's labeling, John Paul Mac Isaac contends, implicitly accused him of being a hacker, and was therefore libel.
"The statement at issue here is plainly an opinion, albeit an unflattering one."
What? Is there something supposedly wrong with liking to talk a lot?
We've just filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Oregon Supreme Court to protect such equal rights, and overturn Oregon precedent that denies such rights.
at least in the context of a Facebook squabble.
A company had a trademark canceled in a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board proceeding, based on what the Board described as the company's "delaying tactics, including the willful disregard of Board orders." The TTABlog posted about it, and some commenters criticized the company's lawyer, who sued them for libel.
"Underhill was disciplined for publicly responding to former clients’ negative online reviews with internet postings that disclosed sensitive and confidential information obtained during the representation. Underhill then ...."
An interesting, though unsurprising, decision in a case brought by prominent Russian businessmen over the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier.
So says the Delaware Court of Chancery: "If the information currently redacted remains so, the public will have no means to understand the dispute MetTel has asked the Court to adjudicate."
Louisiana is one of about a dozen states that has a criminal libel statute; my sense is that, throughout the country, there are likely about 20-30 criminal libel prosecutions per year.
A mayoral candidate, a supposed Aryan bicyclist, a video, a newspaper story, and a libel lawsuit.
Past perfect, libel-proof plaintiffs, substantial truth, “actual malice,” statutes of limitations, and more.
But I think the First Amendment prohibits such pretrial injunctions, and in any event the injunction targets opinions and not just false factual assertions.
The court finds that the Trump campaign didn't offer enough facts suggesting that CNN knew the statement was false (or was likely false); the campaign is allowed to file an amended complaint if it can make more specific allegations.
so long as the user's true identity is unknown to the audience, and the pseudonym has no "legally cognizable independent reputation" (as when the pseudonym is used by an author to sell books).
An interesting new case from Wisconsin.
So holds the California Court of Appeal, interpreting the California anti-SLAPP statute.
The Washington Supreme Court overrules a trial court's order requiring the removal of one such statement; but what should the general rule on this be?
Officer Saqueta Williams had been on the DA's "Do Not Call [to Testify] List" because of alleged assault during an off-duty incident (as to which she was later acquitted)—she alleges the documentary falsely implied that she was on the list because she was "dirty and dishonest."
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.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks