Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity ...
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States, [1] meaning true statements cannot be defamatory. [ 2 ] Most states recognize that some categories of false statements are considered to be defamatory per se , such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement caused them ...
The government is not permitted to fire an employee based on the employee's speech if three criteria are met: the speech addresses a matter of public concern; the speech is not made pursuant to the employee's job duties, but rather the speech is made in the employee's capacity as a citizen; [47] and the damage inflicted on the government by the ...
A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world.
Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is an approach to the analysis of written, spoken, or sign language, including any significant semiotic event. [ citation needed ] The objects of discourse analysis ( discourse , writing, conversation, communicative event ) are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of sentences ...
Although the First Amendment protects free speech, there are exceptions for incitement, defamation, obscenity, fighting words, and true threats. [3] Before the Supreme Court ruling, there were conflicting standards in different states as well as in different federal courts of appeal over how to determine whether a threatening statement is not protected by the First Amendment.
The Court said that because of these core American free-speech principles, it would have to consider Sullivan's defamation claims "against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes ...