Search for: "Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts" Results 1 - 20 of 20
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Feb 2019, 9:07 am by Stephanie Sundier
Following this decision, the court later expanded actual malice to include “all defamed ‘public figures,'” in Curtis Publishing Co. v. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 9:03 am by Jennifer Williams
In 1967, the Supreme Court determined in Curtis Publishing Co. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 4:00 am by Administrator
The public figure concept was entrenched in US defa- mation law in the concurring reasons in the Curtis Publishing Co. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 6:07 am
Sullivan, supra; Curtis Publishing Co. v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 5:30 pm by INFORRM
The protection given to public officials by Sullivan in US law has been extended to embrace public figures in general (Curtis Publishing Co v Butts, Associated Press v Walker 388 US 130 [1967]) Nor is a complete bar necessary to ensure freedom of speech. [read post]
15 Jul 2021, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Publisher and distributor liability is consistent with the First Amendment, despite the chilling effect it might sometimes create, so long as it complies with the New York Times v. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 1:05 am by INFORRM
For defendants will be able to rely on it where those they have criticised are neither public officials nor public figures (to whom the Supreme Court extended the “actual malice” rule in Curtis Publishing Co v Butts 388 U.S. 130 (1967)) (at [106]). [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
If you just blithely ignore it, and publish the story despite having been told that it may well be mistaken, that would be textbook "reckless disregard," which would allow liability even in a public official case: Consider, for instance, Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 6:58 am by Dan
 He noted that the Court expanded the actual malice rule to all defamed public figures in Curtis Publishing Co. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 2:14 pm by Gustavo Arballo
En este caso la Corte recuerda que este criterio especial -que brinda mayores grados de libertad al periodismo- sólo se aplica a funcionarios o figuras públicas y no a ciudadanos comunes -esos que no han "asumido un rol influyente en el ordenamiento de la sociedad", según  doctrina de la Corte USA en “Curtis Publishing Co. v. [read post]