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).
A Texas judge issued the temporary restraining order before any trial on the merits, and apparently without the ex-girlfriend even showing up -- and it seems inconsistent with Texas law and likely the First Amendment/
Hard to see what President Trump was referring to with regard to the New York Times story with new allegations about Justice Kavanaugh.
The doctrine originated in criminal appeals by defendants who were fugitives, but it can also apply to civil cases -- here, where the federal court plaintiff has absconded with her and defendant's children in violation of a state court order.
So holds a Second Circuit panel this morning.
Unsurprisingly, the exact allegations that are said to be libelous don't appear in the complaint.
The plaintiff, Yan Huang, is vice minister of China's Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. Defendant, Wengui Guo, who also goes by Miles Kwok, has been described as a "renegade Chinese billionaire," who fled China and now lives in New York.
Dr. Calvin Day had claimed that describing his suspension as based on "unprofessional conduct" was libelous. (He had also earlier sought to get dismissed criminal charges expunged, and tried to bind local news outlets to the expungement order.) He lost, and was ordered to pay over $80,000 in attorney's fees.
An anonymous lawsuit claims that it's tortious to try to artificially boost the prominence of an embarrassing article.
An academic debate turns into professional and legal accusations.
Noted political publicist Trevor FitzGibbon (who had represented Julian Assange) sues whistleblower lawyer Jesselyn Radack (who had represented Edward Snowden) -- a second time.
Prior Minnesota precedents had said that some First Amendment protections against defamation liability applied only to media speakers.
It may be time to hire a libel service.
According to the ACLU of Rhode Island, which is representing the blogger, the order was issued without any adversarial hearing at which the blogger could appear.
"In this day and age, one must accept the possibility that one might be recorded in public. That possibility heightens when one chooses to engage in vitriolic behavior."
Can a court block multiple statements that seem to come from several people, but that were actually all posted by one person?
Even if injunctions against libel don't violate the First Amendment, should state courts still reject them on other grounds?
Even if injunctions against libel don't violate the First Amendment, should state courts still reject them on state separation of powers principles?
A relatively novel suggestion, aimed at providing libel defendants with the necessary First Amendment protections while still giving libel plaintiffs protection early in the litigation process.
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