enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Barrett v. Rosenthal - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal

    The California Supreme Court reversed a judgment by the California Court of Appeals, First District, which would have allowed a trial on one of the defamation claims. [2] The lower court's decision was the first opinion to break from Zeran v. America Online, Inc. by holding that Section 230 immunity was not absolute for common law distributors.

  3. Disinformation vs misinformation: How to spot fake news on ...

    www.aol.com/disinformation-vs-misinformation...

    Misinformation vs. disinformation: What the terms mean and the effects they have What is fake news? Fake news , literally, means any false information distributed by a news outlet or related to ...

  4. So The Recount asked Shaydanay Urbani, who teaches journalists and NGOs how to identify misleading information, how to be smarter news consumers amidst an onslaught of misinformation and ...

  5. Misinformation - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation

    Image posts are the biggest spread of misinformation on social media, a fact which is grossly unrepresented in research. This leads to a "yawning gap of knowledge" as there is a collective ignorance on how harmful image-based posts are compared to other types of misinformation. [131]

  6. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of...

    National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services.

  7. Smith v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._California

    Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), was a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the freedom of the press.The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book's content, and thus violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment. [1]

  8. Thing v. La Chusa - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_v._La_Chusa

    La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that limited the scope of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The majority opinion was authored by Associate Justice David Eagleson , and it is regarded as his single most famous opinion and representative of his conservative judicial ...

  9. California 'lawfare' case against pro-lifers first brought by ...

    www.aol.com/california-lawfare-case-against-pro...

    California 'lawfare' case against pro-lifers first brought by Kamala Harris ends after nine years. Jamie Joseph. January 28, 2025 at 4:00 PM.