Sentences with phrase «like libel»

The liability component of your manufactured home policy usually does not cover personal injury claims like libel, slander and false arrest.

If you have damage claims resulting from things like libel, slander, false arrest, or defamation of character, an umbrella policy could protect you, when your homeowners policy may not.

There is also a «personal injury» endorsement that covers things like libel and slander.

In our litigious society, more and more businesses are being sued due to issues like libel, slander, property damage, and bodily injury, just to name a few.

In fact, it is even more liberal than the US, including representation in civil cases for the most part as well (there are a few exceptions, like libel, and from what I've read, even that is changing).

Is there a single philosophical distinction that cuts across the law, or are there just piecemeal exceptions to «free speech» for things like libel, false medical claims, incitement to violence, etc..?

Indeed, it seems rather like libel to me.

The personal injury endorsement covers things like libel, and it's one of those types of coverage that if you need it, you need it badly, so it's well worth considering.

There is also a «personal injury» endorsement that covers things like libel and slander.

Not exact matches

The President - elect is a man who has said he needs to «open up» libel laws in order to make it easier to sue newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post.

Like slander, libel refers to making a false statement that is harmful to a person's reputation.

It takes a lot more than assertions one way or another to libel the likes of us.

These grotesque libels have been propounded as well by tenured radicals as though they were facts, and disseminated in «news» stories without editorial comment by left - wing journalists like Earl Caldwell of the New York Daily News.

Although BEAM SUNTORY may from time to time monitor or review discussion, chats, postings, transmissions, bulletin boards, and the like on the Site, BEAM SUNTORY is under no obligation to do so and assumes no responsibility or liability arising from the content of any such locations nor for any error, defamation, libel, slander, omission, falsehood, obscenity, pornography, profanity, danger, or inaccuracy contained in any information within such locations on the Site.

This was the sort of case which showed up exactly how inadequate our libel laws are when confronted with rumour - mongering of this scale on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Although INscribe Digital may from time to time monitor or review discussions, chats, postings, transmissions, bulletin boards, and the like on the Sites, INscribe Digital is under no obligation to do so and assumes no responsibility or liability arising from the content of any such locations on the Sites nor for any error, defamation, libel, slander, omission, falsehood, obscenity, pornography, profanity, danger, or inaccuracy contained in any information within such locations on the Sites.

9.3 In the event that the World Photography Organisation may, from time to time, allow for discussions, chats, postings, transmissions, bulletin board, and the like on the Site, the World Photography Organisation is under no obligation to monitor or review such transmitted information and assumes no responsibility or liability arising from the content of any such transmitted information nor for any error, defamation, libel, slander, omission, falsehood, obscenity, pornography, profanity, danger, or inaccuracy of any such information.

See, it's cases like this, when big media steamrollers all over the reputation of a scientist, that the UK libel system is designed for.

But in putting all their eggs in the one basket of «crooked skeptics,» this looks to me more like the locomotive light of an oncoming libel / slander retaliatory legal action train which could destroy the whole issue.

And by making him an admin in effect endorsing him wikipedia will not be able to slither its way out of it like they do with most of the libel suits they get.

The libel put out by people like Steven Milloy and AFM founder Roger Bate [1], in which it is suggested that the failure of the eradication program was due to a mythical ban on DDT imposed at the behest of environmentalists, who callously caused millions of deaths, depends critically on ignoring resistance.

Much like Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, this scheme, with its constant infusions of material that could be libel / slander against skeptic climate scientists, was also doomed to fail from the start, built on a foundation of sand about its core «evidence» that was pushed by a person who never won a Pulitzer, and whose narratives don't line up right.

«Then they wouldn't do stupid things like issue threats of libel suits that they can't win against bloggers who, it turns out, have lots of friends willing to make the law firm and its client look bad for it.»

Libel claims are often associated with top - level political figures or celebrities, like the now infamous fanfare of the Plebgate saga.

Yes, there are libel laws and the like but last we looked, the party taking offense must demonstrate clear damage.

I'd like to sketch an imaginary courtroom, at least partly in the spirit of some others we've seen on Slaw, where a judge is determining a question of libel.

Potentially defamatory posts on an investor's bulletin board were more like slander than libel, a High Court judge has ruled.

A libel case, like all lawsuits, involves the government's judicial branch using its coercive power to make you pay money as a result of your speech, based on a law requiring you to pay money for certain kinds of speech.

The First Amendment looks like it protects libel, but it also looks like it should protect your right to reprint any book you want.

The standard, later extended to include public figures, set a high bar for libel and meant that people like Mr. Trump — both a public figure and soon - to - be public official — would have a very, very difficult time winning a libel lawsuit.

Online trade libel lawsuits are on the rise thanks to consumer review websites like Yelp, Ripoff Report, and TripAdvisor.

If so, and you'd like to speak with an Internet libel lawyer about your predicament, get in touch with Aaron Kelly.

Our Internet defamation lawyers know slander and libel like Michael Jordan knows basketball and have successfully handled all manners of reputation - related cases - for individuals and businesses.

Court orders and injunctions sound like an approach that would also work for libel and «fake news» campaigns, as well as less severe threats to one's self - esteem or reputation.

Of course, now they are more or less free to make whatever comments they like about the company, short of slander or libel, without fear of punishment.

Like their traditional home insurance counterparts, mobile home insurance policies also protect residents of Kansas from liability claims, including libel and slander.

Excluded from your limits — An umbrella policy can pay for expenses related to claims that aren't covered by your current auto and home policies, like false arrest, libel, and slander.

That's because homeowners and renters policies aren't designed to cover things like destroyed inventory, libel accusations or customer injuries.

Like traditional home insurance, mobile home insurance policies protect residents of Oregon from property loss and damage and from liability claims including libel and slander.

An umbrella policy can cover injuries like dog bites, false arrest, libel, slander, other lawsuits and defamation of character.

Although SelectBlinds.com, from time to time, monitor or review postings, transmissions, and the like on the site, SelectBlinds.com is under no obligation to do so and assumes no liability arising from the content of any such locations nor for any error, defamation, libel, slander, omission, falsehood, obscenity, pornography, profanity, danger, or inaccuracy contained in any information within such locations on the site.