The doctrine originated in criminal appeals by defendants who were fugitives, but it can also apply to civil cases -- here, where the federal court plaintiff has absconded with her and defendant's children in violation of a state court order.
So holds a Second Circuit panel this morning.
Unsurprisingly, the exact allegations that are said to be libelous don't appear in the complaint.
The plaintiff, Yan Huang, is vice minister of China's Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. Defendant, Wengui Guo, who also goes by Miles Kwok, has been described as a "renegade Chinese billionaire," who fled China and now lives in New York.
Dr. Calvin Day had claimed that describing his suspension as based on "unprofessional conduct" was libelous. (He had also earlier sought to get dismissed criminal charges expunged, and tried to bind local news outlets to the expungement order.) He lost, and was ordered to pay over $80,000 in attorney's fees.
An anonymous lawsuit claims that it's tortious to try to artificially boost the prominence of an embarrassing article.
An academic debate turns into professional and legal accusations.
Noted political publicist Trevor FitzGibbon (who had represented Julian Assange) sues whistleblower lawyer Jesselyn Radack (who had represented Edward Snowden) -- a second time.
Prior Minnesota precedents had said that some First Amendment protections against defamation liability applied only to media speakers.
It may be time to hire a libel service.
According to the ACLU of Rhode Island, which is representing the blogger, the order was issued without any adversarial hearing at which the blogger could appear.
"In this day and age, one must accept the possibility that one might be recorded in public. That possibility heightens when one chooses to engage in vitriolic behavior."
Can a court block multiple statements that seem to come from several people, but that were actually all posted by one person?
Even if injunctions against libel don't violate the First Amendment, should state courts still reject them on other grounds?
Even if injunctions against libel don't violate the First Amendment, should state courts still reject them on state separation of powers principles?
A relatively novel suggestion, aimed at providing libel defendants with the necessary First Amendment protections while still giving libel plaintiffs protection early in the litigation process.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
Should the availability of anti-libel injunctions turn on the subject matter of the false and defamatory speech that's being enjoined?
This is the key proposal from my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions -- a way of taming the anti-libel injunction to include important First Amendment procedural protections, but still allow its use to prevent genuine libels.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
Please share it widely!
I thought I'd serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions; here is the section on criminal libel law -- the article argues that anti-libel injunctions are like mini-criminal-libel laws.
Episode 3 of Free Speech Rules, starring UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh
My new article, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review late this year -- I'd love to get feedback, while there's still plenty of time to edit it.
This violates the First Amendment and common law rights of access to court records, I think; Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen) has just filed a motion to intervene and unseal in the matter (Shelby Resorts Corp. v. Does, in New Jersey Superior Court).
Another court opinion reinforces this principle -- even if repetition of libelous statements can be forbidden after a trial on the merits at which the statements are found libelous, it can't be preliminarily enjoined before such a trial.
A teenager wrongly accused of harassing a Native American activist sues The Washington Post for $250 million.
First Amendment limitations on libel and other torts are complicated
Thomas thinks the Supreme Court may have erred in its 1964 NYT v. Sullivan ruling.
Facts vs. opinions; compensatory/presumed/punitive damages; negligence, recklessness, and knowledge; libel per se; timing; choice of law; and more defamation law fun.
The claim stemmed from the Times' published statements "questioning the accuracy of a blog post plaintiff wrote for The Times," and the Times' decision not to publish more work from Rall.
The "questionable" "editing choices," the court said, weren't sufficiently injurious to reputation to qualify as libelous (whether or not they conveyed a false message).
The op-ed's claims are harsh, but they're also true.
Federal and state courts are divided on whether such injunctions are constitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in.
There's a New Hampshire prosecution for criminal libel of a police chief -- and it may well be legally viable, at least if the defendant's statement is seen as a knowingly false factual claim. [UPDATE, June 8, 2018: Charges have now been dropped.]
A libel lawsuit in which the alleged libel is sealed is like Hamlet without the Prince -- or maybe like Othello with Iago's slanders redacted.
No, says the Iowa Supreme Court, rejecting the claim that such statements (labeled "counterculture practices" by the plaintiffs) were libelous or negligent.
The ad criticizes Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson; the TRO that she just got today is almost certainly an unconstitutional prior restraint.
"[Defendant's] posts inspired viewers' comments, which read like a nerd's version of a fist fight." More substantively, "In this context, and considering the cutting-edge nature of [plaintiff's] research into antimatter's theoretical applications [which defendant was sharply criticizing], a reasonable reader would expect zealous debate."
So the New Jersey Supreme Court held this morning, in Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. Adelman.
City councilman names his WiFi network "[Name of mayor and her husband] stocking u2"; could be libelous, holds the Idaho Supreme Court by a 3-2 vote.
In 1980, the Minnesota Supreme Court said "yes"; yesterday, it agreed to hear a case that might lead it to reconsider.
A new section for the brief I blogged about last week, ultimately arguing that an injunction is improper in Sindi v. El-Moslimany -- but not because of the First Amendment.
I'm crowd-testing this draft amicus brief, which I need to be file by Wednesday, April 25. Please tell me what I'm getting wrong here!
This modal will close in 10