Search for: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" Results 61 - 80 of 362
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Dec 2022, 5:32 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Under the same logic, they'd have to suspend any account that posted the Pentagon Papers, which is protected by New York Times Co. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 12:10 pm by Lawrence Solum
In doing so, the Article addresses how this originalistic approach might affect the continued viability of the Court’s actual malice standard in defamation law adopted nearly sixty years ago in New York Times Co. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2022, 5:54 pm by INFORRM
IPSO 07811-22 Centre for Media Monitoring v The Times, 1 Accuracy (2021), No breach – after investigation 10441-22 Yates v Retford, Gainsborough & Worksop Times, 2 Privacy (2021), 1 Accuracy (2021), No breach – after investigation New Issued Cases There were no new cases issued on the Media and Communications list last week. [read post]
10 Oct 2022, 2:48 am by INFORRM
On Thursday 6 October 2022 there was a trial of preliminary issues  in the case of Sir James Dyson and Ors v Channel 4 News. [read post]
19 Aug 2022, 3:23 pm by Eugene Volokh
Those tools offer a soapbox and megaphone that reach millions—not just passersby on the town square or recipients of leaflets handed out in front of the state capitol or even readers of a full-page advertisement in the print edition of The New York Times such as the one that prompted the Sullivan case. [read post]
31 Jul 2022, 8:45 am by Joel R. Brandes
  Finally, $175/hour was an appropriate rate for a 2021 law school graduate who, at the time that the Motion was filed, had not yet taken the New York State Bar. [read post]
27 Jul 2022, 1:31 pm by Eugene Volokh
The Supreme Court famously protected some false defamatory statements in New York Times Co. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 5:54 am by Ryan Goodman
New York Times Co. v Sullivan and later libel cases do offer a defense for false speech about public people or entities—which Dominion may be held to be—if it was uttered without what the Court has characterized as “serious doubt” of its truth or a “high degree of awareness” of its probable falsity. [read post]