Sentences with phrase «libel laws so»

Not exact matches

«So when Trump says he wants to «open up» libel law, he really means (if he has the slightest knowledge of the law) that he wants to open up — to change — the First Amendment, which, beginning in 1964, has been held to require in cases brought by public figures, proof that what was said was false, and that the newspaper knew or suspected that it was false.

I know there are some who take issue with the media on several fronts, and even go so far as to criticise me for my part in the repeal of the Criminal Libel Law, for it made the media «too free».

The most important thing is to establish a public - interest defence in English and Welsh libel law, so that doctors and scientists can present their data without being sued.

In the latest so - called libel tourism case under the United Kingdom's controversial laws, cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst has been hit with another defamation suit.

So why should the author be asked to assume intimate knowledge of the laws of infringement, libel, invasion of privacy, and «matter otherwise contrary to law» in every jurisdiction where the book appears?

Impermissible Uses.You understand that you may not: • modify, adapt or hack the Service or modify another website so as to falsely claim or imply that it is associated with the Service, AuthorMarketingClub.com, AMC, Author Marketing Club or any other AMC service; • reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit any portion (including, without limitation, the contents of the AMC email or similar notification, the look and feel of the AMC website, and the contents of the web pages of the Service, use the Service or access the Service without the express written permission of Author Marketing Club; • verbally, physically, or otherwise abuse (including threats of abuse or retribution) any AMC member or AMC employee, agent or officer; • upload, post, host, or transmit unsolicited email, SMSs, or spam messages; • transmit worms or viruses or any code of a destructive nature; • as a Reader Member, utilize the information provided in a Query other than to provide a relevant response to a Specific Query posted by a Author Member; • violate any applicable federal, state or local laws or regulations; or, • plagiarize, violate or otherwise infringe upon the trademark, copyright, patent, trade secret, or any other rights of any person, firm or entity, expressly including but not limited to libel, slander or invasion of rights of privacy, publicity or «moral rights».

«English libel law is so intimidating, so expensive, so hostile to serious journalists that it has a chilling effect on all areas of debate, silencing scientists, journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and everyone else who dares to tackle serious matters of public interest.»

It replaces the common law defence of «fair comment» with the statutory defence of «honest opinion», and takes a potshot at «libel tourism» by providing that the courts should not deal with actions brought against non-UK or non-EU residents unless satisfied it is appropriate to do so.

Interestingly, we also have specific protection against foreign libel judgments, so I'll just be focusing on American law.

Britain's libel laws have traditionally favored the plaintiff — so much so, in fact, that plaintiffs often made substantial efforts to sue for libel in Britain when possible, even when a media organization is based in another county.

President Trump has been vocal about his disdain for the press, vowing to toughen libel laws and crack down on so - called fake news.

But, the UK is known for having very plaintiff - friendly libel law (although less - so now).

«Citizen journalists» should not think they are immune to the law of contempt, that there is a certain belief that so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect the laws of contempt or libel.

They submit they did so because the law acknowledges that public vindication is pivotal in a libel action and because they viewed as imperative the need to present the fullest possible case in the absence of Ms. Halstead.

The law penalizes falsely soiling a person's reputation, but it is (rarely and slimly) possible that a person's reputation is already so soiled that no further damage can be done, see for instance Jackson v. Longcope, 394 Mass. 577 and references therein on libel - proof plaintiffs.