Search for: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" Results 161 - 180 of 306
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
As summarized above, combined commercial and noncommercial speech that “communicates information, expresses opinion, recites grievances, protests claimed abuses, or solicits financial support on behalf of a movement whose existence and objectives are matters of public concern, [] is not purely commercial” and is afforded full First Amendment protection. [15]  In City of New York v. [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 6:57 am
The statute also allows punishment for false statements on matters of public concern, even without a showing of “actual malice” in the sense set forth by New York Times Co. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 7:35 pm
" In papers, plaintiff theorizes that the previous cases mentioned are examples of an "extraordinarily speech-protective law" emerging from the Supreme Court's decision in New York Times Co. v Sullivan. [read post]
19 Jul 2014, 7:35 pm
" In papers, plaintiff theorizes that the previous cases mentioned are examples of an "extraordinarily speech-protective law" emerging from the Supreme Court's decision in New York Times Co. v Sullivan. [read post]
27 May 2014, 5:54 pm
Glenn Greenwald has a new book out about Edward Snowden, and Michael Kinsley has a review of it in the New York Times. [read post]
1 May 2014, 9:01 pm by John Dean
What is very noticeable about Ohio’s political false statement statute is that it embraces and requires a standard of falsity that parallels the Constitutional standard set forth in New York Times v. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 2:35 pm by David Cosgrove
Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Stewart once wrote that the tort of defamation “reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being.1”Defamation law has been somewhat static since the seminal Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 9:07 am by Ken White
The court applied the familiar "gist" or "sting" doctrine, saying that misquotes are only "false" for defamation purposes if they materially change the meaning of the quote: We conclude that a deliberate alteration of the words uttered by a plaintiff does not equate with knowledge of falsity for purposes of New York Times Co. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm by Julie Hilden
In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit analyzed two key prior Supreme Court precedents: New York Times v. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 8:44 am by Ronald Collins
            Question: In many respects, this is an inside account of the struggle to preserve and perpetuate New York Times Co. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 5:03 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Copied from Balkinization.Harvard Law Review Symposium 2014: Freedom of the PressA conference in celebration of the 50th anniversary ofNew York Times Co. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 1:55 pm by JB
The Harvard Law Review is hosting a symposium on Freedom of the Press on February 15th to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of New York Times v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 7:04 am by Joy Waltemath
The High Court noted that the actual malice standard in the ATSA was patterned after New York Times Co v Sullivan, which requires material falsity, and Congress presumably meant to incorporate it into the ATSA’s immunity exception and did not mean to deny immunity to true statements made recklessly. [read post]