Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court clarifying the legal definition of obscenity as material that lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". [1]
[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 ...
Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510 (Cal. 2006), the California Supreme Court ruled that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) does not permit web sites to be sued for libel that was written by other parties. To solve the problem of libel tourism , the SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts, unless those judgments are compliant with the U.S.
The current Act is the Defamation Act 1992 which came into force on 1 February 1993 and repealed the Defamation Act 1954. [81] New Zealand law allows for the following remedies in an action for defamation: compensatory damages; an injunction to stop further publication; a correction or a retraction; and in certain cases, punitive damages.
Azealia Banks has issued a cease-and-desist letter to Matty Healy. The 33-year-old rapper posted a photo to X (formerly Twitter) on Dec. 8 of a formal cease-and-desist letter from her lawyer ...
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 ...
Featuring Lisa Kudrow and Ray Romano, Netflix's new dark comedy "No Good Deed" is "about the highs and lows of searching for a safe, happy home."
Des Moines, California became the first state in the United States to enact a statutory scheme that protected the free speech rights of students. These protections were codified in Educational Code 10611. [2] In 1977, the California Legislature rewrote this code and replaced it with Educational Code 48907. This revision was prompted by Bright v.