The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
I've also split off this short separate piece from my "The Duty Not to Continue Distributing Your Own Libels," since it might be useful even to those who aren't interested in that article (though the two can also work well together). I think of this sort of separated section as a subroutine, or, if you prefer, a lemma. It too has just been published in the Notre Dame Law Review, volume 97, pp. 351-55. The abstract:
Is it libelous to write that someone has been convicted of a crime, but to fail to mention that the conviction has been reversed? Or to write that someone has been charged, without mentioning the acquittal? The answers, it turns out, are often "yes"; this Article lays out the precedents that so conclude.
Here too, I'd love to hear what readers think, and how lawyers find it useful (if they do).