Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The defense of "fair comment" in the U.S. since 1964 has largely been replaced by the ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This case relied on the issue of actual malice , which involves the defendant making a statement known at the time to be false, or which was made with a "reckless disregard" of whether the ...
The honest opinion defence (formerly the fair comment defence) is sometimes known as "the critic's defence" as it is designed to protect the right of the press to state valid opinions on matters of public interest such as governmental activity, political debate, public figures and general affairs.
Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion; that it indicated, in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion; that an honest person could have held the opinion on any fact which existed when the statement was published, including any fact in a privileged statement that ...
The subsequent case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe [1] affirmed the defence, which was subsequently raised successfully in several defamation proceedings. [2] [3] [4] The defence was abolished by s4(6) Defamation Act 2013, being replaced with the statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest. [5]
Years ago, I sat down with an investigative journalist to learn more about her work. I assumed her political views leaned leftward, and I was correct, but her skepticism of government was as ...
Fair comment: Statements made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest (such as regarding official acts) are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
Let us unravel this debate by starting with a common definition of gerrymandering: the practice of drawing artificial political district lines to advantage one party over the other.
The defense case took another step backward during Tuesday’s charging conference, in which the judge heard from both sides about how he should instruct the jury on the law and resolved a series ...