"The allegedly defamatory nature of this statement is the implication that Plaintiff holds itself out as a local business when it is not. But truth is an affirmative defense to defamation under Delaware law, and the ... Declaration [submitted by Avas] does not deny that Plaintiff maintains call centers abroad in locations such as Mexico or Asia."
A federal court held that Prince was a public figure, and hadn't offered enough plausible allegations that the defendants knew the statements were false or likely false (the so-called "actual malice" showing).
An appeal a day late (even if not a dollar short). [UPDATE: But there may be a lifesaving treatment!]
"On information and belief, and as discovery will likely reveal, Green has been acting as a proxy for another performer who, mistakenly believing that she and Plaintiff are stars of equal stature, has repeatedly used other social media intermediaries in a hopeless effort to advance her career at Plaintiff’s expense."
Winslow had accused a doctor working on contract with an immigration detention center of "perform[ing] illegal hysterectomies on women at the direction of Trump and [DHS]."
The U.S. shouldn't import British defamation law, no matter how much Donald Trump would like to.
This comes in a false light lawsuit by the family of former National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn, whom CNN had labeled “QAnon followers.”
From a libel case filed by accused triple murderer Brice Rhodes
All the lawsuits stem from the media's quoting Nathan Phillips' claims that Sandmann was "block[ing Phillips'] way" at a demonstration by the Lincoln Memorial.
A potentially very important 2-1 decision today from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which held that such a #MeToo post wasn’t on a “matter of public concern,” and was thus less protected by the First Amendment.
Among other things, "A jury could reasonably conclude that, before making so weighty an accusation as rape based on nothing more than hearsay evidence, the prudent person would, at a minimum, want to hear the other person's side of the story."
The lawsuit, which stems from statements about the fraternity’s use of a salute that looks similar to a Nazi salute and robes that some viewed as similar to Klan robes was rejected chiefly on the grounds that the statement was about the fraternity not the plaintiff, and was in any event opinion.
A good illustration of how many courts deal with personal jurisdiction in libel cases.
Good thing Zak Smith had lawyer characters with 18 Tort Law Acumen.
Litigating defamation claims "in secrecy to avoid any potential embarrassment to" their subjects "directly contradicts the presumptive right of public access to pleadings and judicial proceedings."
When a judge hearing a protection order petition thinks the defendant is engaged in "harassment," which can include two or more statements the judge thinks is libelous, the judge can effectively criminalize future libels of the plaintiff by the defendant.
But here the Iowa Supreme Court reduced the verdict to $3M, with an interesting analysis of the law of libel.
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
