Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Slander and gossip are equally evil, and the initial speaker is responsible for any further damage caused as the report is spread. Unless there is a compelling reason to speak ill of someone, as is the case of protect oneself or others against harm, it is not permissible even if the account be true.
In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel (written, printed, posted online, published in mass media) and slander (oral speech). It is treated as a civil wrong ( tort , delict ), as a criminal offence , or both.
Substantial truth is a legal doctrine affecting libel and slander laws in common law ... It is sufficient to prove that "the substance, the gist, the sting, of the ...
Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law.The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). [1]
Res ipsa loquitur (Latin: "the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine in common law and Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions under which a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation.
In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements in the United States unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth. [3]
The Hindustani language employs a large number of profanities across the Hindi-speaking diaspora. Idiomatic expressions, particularly profanity, are not always directly translatable into other languages, and make little sense even when they can be translated. Many English translations may not offer the full meaning of the profanity used in the ...
The Supreme Court adopted the actual malice standard in its landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, [2] in which the Warren Court held that: . The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ...