Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

The end of New York Times v Sullivan: reflections on Masson v New Yorker Magazine

Article Abstract:

In Masson v New Yorker Magazine, the US Supreme Court was asked to decide a case whose outcome could end the protection against libel litigation that was established in New York Times v Sullivan. Janet Malcolm's series of stories about Jeffrey Masson utilized long sections enclosed in quotes, some of which Masson claimed were fabrications. The issue was what standard was to be used in deciding what constituted misrepresentation. The court's decision was that Malcolm's representation of Masson's words could lead a reasonable person to form an inaccurate opinion of what was actually said.

Author: Bollinger, Lee C.
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Publication Name: Supreme Court Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0081-9557
Year: 1991
Freedom of the press, Quotations

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Dun & Bradstreet, Hepps and Milkovich: the lingering confusion in defamation law

Article Abstract:

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., in allowing a defamation action based on a media defendant's opinion statements, continued to cloud what types of speech and speakers are constitutionally protected. Although the Milkovich decision appears to put some media defendants in the same position as private defendants, that is granting less protection for speech, the decision perpetuates distinctions between public and private defendants and newsworthy and private speech. Future standards should emphasize the value of the speech and not the position of the speaker.

Author: Taylor, DeeAnn M.
Publisher: Oceana Publications, Inc.
Publication Name: Annual Survey of American Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0066-4413
Year: 1993
Freedom of speech

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Recklessly false statements in the public-employment context

Article Abstract:

Public employees who make reckless or knowingly false defamatory statements should not be protected by the First Amendment as long as the falsity or recklessness are shown by clear and convincing evidence. Courts have either chosen this per se rule or required public employers that discipline employees for such statements to prove actual harm. The per se rule paired with a heightened burden of proof will protect public employees more limited free speech rights.

Author: Nielson, Howard C., Jr.
Publisher: University of Chicago Law School
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1996
United States, Public employees, Government employees

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Laws, regulations and rules, Libel and slander
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: The rhetoric of results and the results of rhetoric: judicial writings. What's an opinion for?
  • Abstracts: An overview of ADA and its potential effects on workers' compensation law. Second generation employment discrimination: a structural approach
  • Abstracts: The last priesthood: the coming revolution in medical care delivery. A better way to spur medical research and development
  • Abstracts: Beyond litigation: new approaches in state/local sector collective bargaining. Patterns of teacher bargaining in Canada and the United States
  • Abstracts: Why managements should (and should not) have respect for their shareholders. Financial transparency and corporate governance: you manage what you measure
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.