The court also concluded defendant had libeled plaintiff, but the court held that even the nonlibelous expressions of opinion could lead to emotional distress liability. The total verdict of $6.8M.
against the online critic who first posted the allegations, but not against CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), which echoed them.
Plaintiff had argued that defendants' publicizing the religious court's statement "serves as a form of social pressure, calling on the community to shun or ostracize the individual until they comply with the court's demands."
To support the Chiefs, the young fan "wore Native American headdress, painted his face black and red, and donned a Chiefs jersey"; Deadspin said this was "black face" and showed "hate" towards "Black people and the Native Americans."
Plaintiff (Stefan Passantino, Cassidy Hutchinson's former lawyer) may thus eventually prevail, if the claim is shown to be false, and if the defendant is shown to have spoken with "actual malice" (if plaintiff is a public figure) or negligently (if plaintiff is a private figure).
The court concluded that the Director of Safety and Security at a small private college didn't qualify as a "public official or public figure" for purposes of the state's anti-SLAPP statute.
The opinion includes some interesting discussion of defamation by implication.
But he loses: "As a result of Godlewski's guilty plea to 'inappropriate text [m]essages' and 'contact' ..., as set forth in the Affidavit of Probable Cause quoting the offending text messages admitting and memorializing a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old minor, Godlewski is collaterally estopped from denying his participation in [the] sexual relationship ...."
claims that someone has engaged in specific conduct may be factual assertions and therefore potentially libelous.
Law students: Take that Choice of Law (often called Conflicts of Laws) course your law school offers; it can be tremendously important.
The award consisted of $1.5M compensatory damages and $350K punitives.
"[T]he district court’s Rule 50 ruling improperly intruded on the province of the jury by making credibility determinations, weighing evidence, and ignoring facts or inferences that a reasonable juror could plausibly have found to support Palin’s case."
But her national origin discrimination claim (apart from the sex discrimination component) is rejected, as is her defamation claim.
The claim was brought too late, the court holds, and the associated defamation claim is barred by the judicial proceeding privilege.
Plaintiff says he was "always willing to set up business deals with the rich for drugs."
The judge concludes Fox's statements about Jankowicz's plans as Executive Director of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board, and the circumstances of her leaving the position, were constitutionally protected opinion—and, even if they were viewed as factual assertions, were substantially true.
"[A]nyone who has used Facebook is aware that it is a platform that breeds spiteful and juvenile exchanges."
Sen. Mastriano (who is running for reelection to the state senate, and who ran in 2022 for Governor) is suing for, among other things, libel—but trying to keep the allegedly libelous material under seal.
“This Court rejects Defendants’ argument an ordinary person could find ‘amateur,’ in this circumstance, to refer to ‘one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than a profession’ or a ‘devotee, [or] admirer,’ given the surrounding context and circumstance.”
“The article also documents Plaintiff’s four failed attempts at appearing on the Real Housewives of New York, and the potentially circumstantial evidence that the fire was used as a publicity stunt as it occurred just one day prior to Plaintiff joining a talk show wherein she talked extensively about the fire.”
An article from the Defamation: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives symposium, sponsored by the Center for Legal Philosophy at UC Irvine.
"Young proffered CNN messages and emails that showed internal concern about the completeness and veracity of the reporting—the story is 'a mess,' 'incomplete,' not 'fleshed out for digital,' 'the story is 80% emotion, 20% obscured fact,' and 'full of holes like Swiss cheese.'"
An article from the Defamation: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives symposium, sponsored by the Center for Legal Philosophy at UC Irvine.
An article from the Defamation: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives symposium, sponsored by the Center for Legal Philosophy at UC Irvine.
"[T]he only support for Defendant's statements about Plaintiff is that Defendant's 'spiritual investigation' into the murders using 'intuitive tarot readings' led her to Plaintiff."
An article from the Defamation: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives symposium, sponsored by the Center for Legal Philosophy at UC Irvine.
An article from the Defamation: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives symposium, sponsored by the Center for Legal Philosophy at UC Irvine.
More usefully, the case is a reminder that insults and other expressions of opinion aren't libelous.
The case was brought by Dr. Janet Monge against the University of Pennsylvania.
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
