Search for: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" Results 301 - 320 of 400
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jun 2011, 8:37 am by Brian Wolfman
A person familiar with our country’s core values—our devotion to democratic self-governance, as well as to “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate, New York Times Co. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 10:52 am
 However, the principal limitation the Hustler case applies is the protection from the New York Times v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 5:30 pm by INFORRM
In New York Times v Sullivan ((1964) 376 US 254) the US Supreme Court held that because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution a public official could not obtain damages for defamation in relation to his official conduct, unless actual malice could be proved ie that the maker of the statement knew it to be false or was reckless as to its truth. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 7:06 am by Christopher Bird
Further, the English approach places the burden of proving that no damage has been caused on the defendant.This differs from the American approach to defamation, which since New York Times Co. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
Another suggestion: in the four decades since New York Times v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
The Times, for example, will attach an “Editor’s Note” to the web version of an article to allow the subject of the article a form of redress. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 2:40 pm by justinsilverman
The event will focus on “The Court, the Closet and the Press.” Wrote the event’s coordinators: Just as New York Times v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 9:20 am
The Defendants were able to ascertain that none of the players at issue were resident in Indiana at the time of death and the case was transferred to New York and went on to settle. [read post]
24 Dec 2010, 4:10 am
Typically this privilege is extended in connection with some governmental function such statements made by a member of a legislative body in connection with his or her legislative duties or when uttered as sworn testimony in a judicial or legislative proceeding.** Common requires proof of hatred or ill will.*** See New York Times Co. v. [read post]