Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Smartmatic won't be required to give Fox News a trove of information about U.S. federal charges against the voting machine company's co-founder over alleged bribery in the Philippines, a judge ...
People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler (R-MNL-19-01141-CR), also known as the Maria Ressa cyberlibel case, is a high-profile criminal case in the Philippines, lodged against Maria Ressa, co-owner and CEO of Rappler Inc.. [2] Accused of cyberlibel, Ressa was found guilty by a Manila Regional Trial Court on June 15, 2020. [3] [4]: 36
But some of its defamation lawsuits have been snagged by claims of wrongdoing in the Philippines. Information about the bribery accusations was disclosed in court filings last year in the lawsuit ...
Fox News loses bid for Smartmatic voting-tech company's records about Philippines bribery case By JENNIFER PELTZ Associated Press NEW YORK (AP) — Smartmatic won't be required to give Fox News a trove of information about U.S. federal charges against the voting machine company's co-founder over alleged bribery in the Philippines, a judge ruled ...
Controversially, damages in defamation cases brought by public officials are higher than those brought by ordinary citizens, which has a chilling effect on criticism of public policy [152] While the only statutory defence available under French defamation law is to demonstrate the truth of the defamatory statement in question, a defence that is ...
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 S.C.R.A. 792 (1993), alternatively titled Minors Oposa v.Factoran or Minors Oposa, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines recognizing the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility on the environment in the Philippine legal system.
The pro-Trump cable outlet Newsmax and voting technology company Smartmatic settled a major 2020 election defamation lawsuit Thursday in a last-minute agreement to avoid a high-stakes trial.
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick was an Internet defamation case heard in the High Court of Australia, decided on 10 December 2002. The 28 October 2000 edition of Barron's Online, published by Dow Jones, contained an article entitled "Unholy Gains" in which several references were made to the respondent, Joseph Gutnick.