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."
The Newsweek article, among other things, quoted a professor who said two young public supporters of Trump "'camouflage' positions of the hard right 'as feel-good sweetness and light, when, in fact, they are defending raw racism and sexual abuse.'"
Today, Judge Judge Timothy M. Witkowiak refused to issue the injunction, partly on prior restraint grounds. The election is scheduled for tomorrow.
Heard's Washington Post op-ed didn't mention Depp, but the judge concludes that in context it would be seen as implying factual assertions about him.
at least under the Illinois "innocent construction" rule, under which "a nondefamatory interpretation must be adopted if it is reasonable"—"a reasonable reading of Lorenz's article is that although Wedgewood communicated with underage girls, he never meant to take things further."
An interesting 1969 case (based on a publication right after the 1968 election), reversed on appeal in 1974; thanks to Jacob Gershman (Wall St. J.) for letting me know about it.
Plus: Judge rejects Gabbard's Google lawsuit, Bloomberg drops out, and more...
Trump has long complained that libel laws need to be loosened to allow more lawsuits against media outlets.
A clear constitutional violation.
Episode 10 of Free Speech Rules, a video series by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh
There's also more to the case, which was brought over statements made on a local TV broadcast while Morrissey was unsuccessfully running for Richmond Mayor. (He is now a state senator, elected in November.)
The plaintiff is a former Philadelphia officer, who was charged with (and acquitted of) wrongly threatening people with a gun; she claims the documentary wrongly portrayed her as "dirty and dishonest."
The statements about former law student Jonathan Mullane were either fair report of court proceedings or constitutionally protected opinions (e.g., calling Mullane "'rude,' 'dumb,' 'unethical,' a 'little entitled ponce,' and a 'dauphin'").
The high school student was falsely accused of racial harassment, and has sued media companies for $800 million.
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, Ohio State Prof. Charles L. (Lee) Thomason—so he is suing them for libel.
An interesting analysis, handed down last month
An interesting court opinion, though I think on balance mistaken.
"[Anne King's ex-husband], [Washington County Sheriff's Department] Captain King, feeling upset and 'disrespected' over the post, contacted Washington County's magistrate court about initiating a criminal complaint against Ms. King."
Are parents liable for defamation by their minor children?
"The logical conclusion of Plaintiff's argument is that whenever someone sues for defamation because of potentially embarrassing comments, the plaintiff should be allowed to sue anonymously and with the case under seal."
So holds a federal district judge, rejecting the defendant's motion to dismiss (though of course without resolving, at this early stage in the lawsuit, who is telling the truth).
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks