enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. United States defamation law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

    The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless ...

  3. Substantial truth - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_truth

    Substantial truth is a legal doctrine affecting libel and slander laws in common law jurisdictions such as the United ... It is sufficient to prove that "the ...

  4. Defamation - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

    A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander under American law is difficult, as the definition differs between different states and is further affected by federal law. [80] Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together, merging the concepts into a single defamation law. [54]

  5. Fair comment - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_comment

    If the plaintiff can prove malice on the part of the defendant the common law defense of "fair comment" is defeated. The "actual malice" standard only applies when the statement is about a "public official", or a "public figure", or in some cases about a "matter of public interest".

  6. Public figure - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

    The legal burden of proof in defamation actions is thus higher in the case of a public figure than in the case of an ordinary person. Libel laws vary considerably on this matter from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Even within a cultural grouping, the libel laws of the UK are quite different from those in the US, for example.

  7. Actual malice - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice

    This term was adopted by the Supreme Court 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 'actual malice ...

  8. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

    [1] [2] The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant ...

  9. False light - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light

    To this day, this is a classic and often-cited example of speech actionable under the false light tort and has been used in court decisions all across the country. In the 1967 case of Time, Inc. v. Hill , [ 21 ] the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated a false light privacy judgment for the Hill family in the absence of proof of ...