Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Victoria Delsoul
Interesting.

Thanks for the link!

:)

22 posted on 08/16/2005 4:15:05 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Do not dub me shapka broham
OK, here is a better explanation:

Called “libel by omission” or “libel by implication,” cases like Mohr’s received their biggest boost in 1990, when the U.S. Supreme Court held in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal that a newspaper columnist could be liable for implying that a witness lied in a judicial proceeding. Rejecting the newspaper’s argument that expressions of opinion never could be the basis for a libel suit, the court held that the “dispositive question” is whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that statements in the article implied a verifiably false statement of fact about the plaintiff. If so, the court said, the First Amendment would not protect the article from a libel action.Link

31 posted on 08/16/2005 9:02:03 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson