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]
If "actual malice" cannot be shown, the defense of "fair comment" is then superseded by the broader protection of the failure by the plaintiff to show "actual malice". Each state writes its own laws of defamation, and the laws and previously decided precedents in each state vary. In many states, (including Alabama where the case of Times v.
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), [2] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined the immunity of Internet service providers for wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Attorneys for former University of Michigan hockey player Johnny Druskinis filed a defamation lawsuit against a website for allegedly falsely claiming he sprayed painted swastikas on the sidewalk ...
The Anti-Defamation League identified Michigan as a state where the ... the Chief federal district court judge assigned to the case rejected the defense's motion to ...
The case arose after Michigan voters approved the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which amended the state constitution to make affirmative action illegal in public employment and public education. In a plurality opinion joined by two other justices, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the ban on affirmative action was constitutional.
Neutral reportage is a common law defense against libel and defamation lawsuits usually involving the media republishing unproven accusations about public figures. [1] It is a limited exception to the common law rule that one who repeats a defamatory statement is just as guilty as the first person who published it.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.