Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism", though neither of these are imperatives on the US constitution. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States, [1] meaning true statements cannot be defamatory. [2]
As with any defamation case, truth remains an absolute defence to defamation per se. This means that even if the statement would be considered defamatory per se if false, if the defendant establishes that it is in fact true, an action for defamation per se cannot survive. [ 55 ]
This doctrine is applied in matters in which truth is used as an absolute defence to a defamation claim brought against a public figure, but only false statements made with "actual malice" are subject to sanctions. [2] A defendant using truth as a defence in a defamation case is not required to justify every word of the alleged defamatory ...
On the other hand, as a defendant in the common laws of libel, proving the truth of the statement would be considered an affirmative defence. If a claimant is found guilty of launching a defamation lawsuit despite that the statement at hand is, in fact, accurate, the defendant may launch a counterclaim for fraud, recovery of unjustified ...
By Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) -A U.S. federal appeals court on Thursday revived a defamation lawsuit accusing CNN of defaming Project Veritas in its explanation of why the conservative group ...
Sullivan originated), the "fair comment" defense requires that the "privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in Times v. Sullivan. [2]
CNN's fairness guru Emma Lacey-Bordeaux defended the controversial report at the center of a high-stakes defamation trial on Wednesday when called to the witness stand.
Giuliani's legal battle with two election workers is over after the former mayor "fully satisfied" his end of a mystery deal to resolve the $148 million defamation judgement he owed them.