The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Month: July 2014 (Page 1 of 5)

Case Law, Kadir v Channel S Television, Assessment of damages in a libel claim – Sara Mansoori

channelsuksThe case of Kadir v Channel S Television [2014] EWHC 2305 was a hearing for assessment of damages in a libel claim following default judgment.  The Defendant, a Channel broadcasting in the UK in the Bengali language, carried a news item in December 2011 alleging that the Second Claimant, a money transfer business, was reasonably suspected of fraud and that its director, Mr Kadir, had dealt with suspicions against the business’ employees in a highly evasive and incompetent manner. Continue reading

The Defamation Act 2013, A Critical Evaluation, Part 5, The new intermediary defences – Dan Tench

Defamation ActThis is the fifth and final post in this series about the Defamation Act 2013.  In earlier posts I have dealt with general concerns about the Defamation Act 2013, concerns about section 1, “Serious harm” and the new statutory defences of “truth” and “honest comment” and “public interest“. In this post, I conclude by looking at the new intermediary defences in section 5 and section 10. Continue reading

False Light, the Ripoff Report and Defragmentation – Susan Brenner

36th_Street_exit_Grand_Rapids_I-96This post examines a recent opinion from the Michigan Court of AppealsRooks v. Krzewski, 2014 WL 1351353 (2014). Joseph Krzewski appealed when, after a bench trial, a udge held he “portrayed” the two plaintiffs, Jonathan Rooks and Bradley Guizinga, “in a false light.” Rooks v. Krzewski, supra.  The judge ordered Krzewski to “remove the false statements about [them] from the Internet and enjoined him from republishing any of the false statements.” Rooks v. Krzewski, supra.  (For more on false light, check out this post.) Continue reading

Defamation Act 2013, A Critical Evaluation, Part 4, “Public Interest” defence – Dan Tench

Defamation ActIn earlier posts I have dealt with general concerns about the Defamation Act 2013, concerns about section 1, “Serious harm” and the new statutory defences of “truth” and “honest comment” in section 2 and section 3. In this post, I continue setting out concerns with the Defamation Act 2013 by looking at the public interest defence in section 4. Continue reading

United States: Facebook, Cyberbullying and the First Amendment – Susan Brenner

BulliesA “15-year-old high school student” who was “prosecuted for ‘cyberbullying’ under a local law enacted by the Albany County Legislature” pleaded guilty to one count of cyberbullying and then challenged his conviction on appeal.  People v. Marquan M., 2014 WL 2931482 (Court of Appeals of New York 2014).  In his appeal, Marquan M. claimed the statute violated the  First Amendment. People v. Marquan M., supra. Continue reading

« Older posts

© 2022 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑