Privileging Opinion, Denigrating Discourse: How the Law of Defamation Incentivizes News Talk-Show HyperboleClay Calvert
This Article examines how defamation law promotes a culture of hyperbole and exaggeration on television news talk shows at the expense of more meaningful dialogue and discourse.
An emerging trend allows defendants to weaponize their own outrageousness to escape liability via the doctrine of rhetorical hyperbole. By tanking their own reputation for calling it straight, they can live to defame another day.
In a decision with far-reaching ramifications for social media engagement in Australia, the country's top court ruled that media companies may be liable for allegedly defamatory comments left by readers on their Facebook posts.
Although upholding the lower court’s decision, the Illinois Appellate Court arguably crafted a new framework to determine whether a forum selection clause applied to tort claims.
Illinois Court Upholds Summary Judgment in Favor of Crain’s Chicago Business Against Attention-Seeking Tech CEOSteven Mandell and Brian Saucier
The court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Joseph Fox was a limited purpose public figure who failed to introduce any evidence of actual malice, that the statements in the article were substantially true, and that one of the statements was not actionable under the Illinois innocent construction rule.
Eighth Circuit: Post-Complaint Hyperlink to Unchanged Story Constitutes a Republication, May Show Actual MaliceMike Nepple
A federal court partially reinstated Devin Nunes’s defamation lawsuit over an Esquire article, determining that some libel-by-implication claims were actionable, and that a post-publication tweet, after the reporter had received Nunes’s denial, could evidence actual malice.
Florida Court Applies Fair Report Privilege to Toss Former State Investigator’s Libel Suit Against Local StationKaren Williams Kammer
The court entered final summary judgment in favor of the station and reporter Bob Norman, finding, among other things, that what they had reported was true in all material respects.
The decision covers a number of issues of current interest to the media bar, including the circumstances in which hyperlinking to an earlier, allegedly libelous article is a republication starting a new limitations period, the scope of the “issue of public interest” standard in the recently-enacted amendments of New York Anti-SLAPP statute, and the actionability…