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.
Plus, the significance of omitting "IDK."
The court held that the ADL's claims were factual assertions, and not just opinions; whether they are false assertions, and whether plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure (who would therefore have to show knowing or reckless falsehood) remains to be decided.
but throws out a similar award against another professor who backed the student's allegations. (A jury had concluded the student's allegations were false and defamatory.)
"Dr. Morrison brought this lawsuit. He chose to challenge the accuracy of these statements in a public courtroom. If disclosing the allegedly-defamatory statements invades his privacy or causes him injury, it is solely the result of his own actions and decisions."
(as well as other allegations).
But lawsuits for libeling the government do not "have any place in the American system of jurisprudence."
Florida appellate courts are pretty good about reversing unconstitutional injunctions against speech (though Florida trial courts seem to be pretty willing to enter such injunctions).
and so can the professor's Title VII and Title IX discrimination claims against the university.
The defamation lawsuit is the latest in Trump's campaign of lawfare against media outlets, but all of those suits have failed so far.
Censorship of 2,872 Pennsylvania license plates raises free speech questions.
The culture of public accusation and shaming, in high school (and stemming from a relationship that apparently happened when the accuser and accused were sophomores).
What does it mean, in context, to say that a prosecutor "assisted with the prosecution" of someone who has been exonerated?
"he might want to consider hiring an attorney to represent him in this case."
The jury found no real damages, but gave a sizeable punitive award that could be challenged on appeal.
even when he "adopted a controversial 'no punt' strategy."
that it’s probably not “‘trying to advance the public exchange of ideas’ essential to a healthy democracy.”
The lawyers also argue that the speech in the newspaper was “not made pursuant to its right of free speech, but to instead to advance the personal agendas of male faculty members at Notre Dame [and others].”
