Skip to main content

Home/ Future of the Web/ Group items tagged defamatory

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Warner Bros and Intel Sued Over Defamatory 4K Piracy Claims - TorrentFreak - 0 views

  •  
    " Ernesto on March 17, 2016 C: 25 Breaking LegendSky, a hardware manufacturer that creates devices enabling consumers to bypass 4K copy protection, has lodged several counterclaims against Warner Bros. and Intel daughter company Digital Content Protection (DCP). The Chinese company accuses DCP of defamation and monopolization, while demanding compensation for the damages it has suffered."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Registry fires back at ICANN over .SUCKS domain pricing criticism | Ars Technica - 0 views

  •  
    "Vox Populi says comments "defamatory," call for government scrutiny "wrong-headed." by Lee Hutchinson - May 12, 2015 8:03 pm UTC"
  •  
    "Vox Populi says comments "defamatory," call for government scrutiny "wrong-headed." by Lee Hutchinson - May 12, 2015 8:03 pm UTC"
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Can you defame someone with a hyperlink? - 0 views

  •  
    [.... "Gang of Crookes" Newton is the publisher of p2pnet, a site which has for years chronicled the online file-sharing world. Back in 2006, Newton wrote a piece about local Vancouver businessman Wayne Crookes, the owner of West Coast Title Search Ltd. Crookes had just sued a man named Mike Pilling for writing allegedly defamatory articles about Crookes and publishing them on the Internet (Crookes had previously fired Pilling from Canada's Green Party, in which Crookes volunteers). Pilling's articles relied on the obvious pun here, using titles like "Friends of Crookes" and "Gang of Crookes." In covering the free speech aspects of the case, Newton linked to the articles in question. Crookes demanded Newton remove those links, saying that Newton himself could be liable for defamation. Newton refused; Crookes sued. ....]
Paul Merrell

The Ninth Circuit Holds-Correctly-That a Blogger Has the Same Defamation Protection as ... - 0 views

  • On January 17, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled, as a matter of first impression, that First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers and writers, such as bloggers.
  • In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit analyzed two key prior Supreme Court precedents: New York Times v. Sullivan (public official seeking damages for defamation must show “actual malice” as defined as a showing thatthe defendant published the defamatory statement with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false or not) and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (First Amendment requires only a negligence standard for private defamation actions). Notably, Gertz involved an institutional media defendant, and the Gertz Court invoked the need to shield “the press and broadcast media from the rigors of strict liability for defamation.” Yet neither New York Times nor Gertz, as the Ninth Circuit noted, were expressly limited to the institutional press. Moreover,a number of other Supreme Court cases have rejected such a limitation: Bartnicki v. Vopper; Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.; First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20 items per page