by Prof. Nina Brown, just published in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
"The material challenged in the plaintiff's complaint cannot be understood by a reasonable person as anything but substantially, if not literally, true."
An allegedly psychic "Internet sleuth" alleged a professor was involved in the University of Idaho student murders; the professor sued; then the "sleuth" countersued.
by Matthew L. Schafer & Tanvi Valsangikar, just published, through our normal blind review process.
Unlike calling Trump's stolen-election fantasy "the Big Lie," his lawyer's statements were demonstrably false assertions of fact.
Wright claims he's Satoshi Nakamoto, who's credited with inventing Bitcoin; defendant claimed otherwise.
alleging the accuser lied in the proceedings can thus go forward, holds the Connecticut Supreme Court.
(though false allegations about the details of the conduct may be).
Just published as part of the symposium on Media and Society After Technological Disruption, edited by Profs. Justin "Gus" Hurwitz & Kyle Langvardt.
"Every statement of fact in the summary [provided by ChatGPT] pertaining to [plaintiff] Walters is false."
violates the First Amendment, holds the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
Plus: Should committed libertarians be opposed to pro-natalist policies?
Critics argue that excessively strict pleading standards prevent plaintiffs with meritorious defamation claims from obtaining the evidence they need to support them.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals splits 5-4 on the subject.
Plaintiff "asserts that her published work and other accounts describing life as an escort were part of an effort to build a career in writing and were entirely fictional. As for the websites and other internet advertisements cited by defendants, she claims that they were produced for the purpose of satisfying Medium’s 'fact-checking' requirements and possibly promoting a future fictional web series on the topic."
