So holds the Florida Court of Appeal, rejecting the members' claim that they aren't subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. The majority doesn't discuss the substantive merits of the case.
Plus, does speech about a celebrity become "intentional infliction of emotional distress" when the celebrity is known to have been "trauma[tized]" by a violent crime?
Nunes and his family's farm can't sufficiently show damages, so the court doesn't have to reach any of the other elements of defamation.
and thus not actionable defamation, unless defendant "implies undisclosed facts by insinuating that the plaintiff" engaged in specific racist acts or made (undisclosed) racist statements.
But "[n]othing in Plaintiff's conclusory assertions suggest that Plaintiff could plead facts plausibly linking his identity with that of the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto."
One of many allegedly defamatory statements allegedly sent by a former summer intern at a financial company; the court holds a proposed preliminary injunction against future speech by defendant about plaintiff would be an unconstitutional prior restraint, but issues a narrower injunction.
A judge lets Loomer's defamation claim against Maher and HBO go forward.
Generally, when defendants made factual accusations based on what they said was personal knowledge, it's enough that plaintiff swear the statements are false, so it can be inferred that they are knowingly false. If that happens, it's usually up to the jury to decide who's telling the truth.
The lawsuit is brought by Jacki Pick against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, based on statement in Raffensperger's book, Integrity Counts.
It doesn't always work, but it worked on the facts of this case.
Defamation litigation ensues.
"[T]he complaint alleges facts sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt that at least three other directors lack independence from Murdoch."
The Osundairo brothers sued Smollett's lawyer for suggesting that they might have put on white makeup for the hoax.
The statements were true or at least substantially true, the court concludes, plus Trump Media failed to adequately allege knowing or reckless falsehood on the Post's part.
"M.V. ... [sued] J.T., alleging that this action arises out of a personal vendetta and jealous revenge plot by J.T. to destroy his life and reputation. M.V. asserts that, intent on causing him maximum damage after he finally ended their casual, on-and-off sexual relationship that spanned years including through their time together in college, J.T. knowingly published numerous false and defamatory statements to the social media application YikYak, falsely accusing M.V. of rape ...."
The case indirectly involves a long and messy divorce dispute between a Korean billionaire tech CEO (chairman of the third-largest South Korean company) and the daughter of South Korea's first democratically elected President.
Not libel, says the Second Circuit: "the truth is so near to the facts as published that ... no legal harm has been done."
Is it libelous to (1) accuse him of "antisemitism" and (2) accuse him (incorrectly) of having painted a swastika?
So a federal judge rules in a case brought by Tony Bobulinski, who testified about the Bidens before the House Oversight Committee, against Jessica Tarlov, a Fox News commentator and co-host of The Five.
CAIR's allegedly libelous press release about a dismissed former high-level employee "opened the door" to discovery about various allegations the employee had made about CAIR.
After the federal judge denied the university's motion for summary judgment, the case settled. Among other things, the judge concluded that allegations that a coach acted in a racist way were "defamation per se," so that plaintiff didn't have to show specific damages stemming from the allegations.
Veritas had been suspended from Twitter for including an interview subject's house number; CNN "suggested on-air that Twitter banned Veritas for 'promoting misinformation.'"
Fort the answer—or rather, answers—a court has to resolve a choice of law question.
The allegedly libelous claims about the candidate were made three months after he lost the election; a Magistrate Judge had held the candidate was no longer a public figure, but the District Court disagreed.
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."
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