Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Maharaj Libel Case was an 1862 trial in the Supreme Court of Bombay, in British India. The case was initiated by Jadunath Brajratanjee Maharaj against Nanabhai Rustomji Ranina and Karsandas Mulji. It stemmed from an editorial article they had published, which accused the Vallabhacharya and Pushtimarg Sect of certain alleged controversial ...
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals (under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation [22] [23] [24]) in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a ...
The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless ...
Criminal libel is a legal term, of English origin, which may be used with one of two distinct meanings, in those common law jurisdictions where it is still used.. It is an alternative name for the common law offence which is also known (in order to distinguish it from other offences of libel) as "defamatory libel" [1] or, occasionally, as "criminal defamatory libel".
In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements in the United States unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth. [3]
The term comes from the old French libel, libelle, libeau, corresponding to French: libelle, from Latin: libellus, diminutive of Latin: liber, book, inner bark of a tree. The name was borrowed from the Roman law where a pleading known as the libellus conventionis was employed to commence an action.
This file is licensed under the United Kingdom Open Government Licence v3.0.: You are free to: copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information; adapt the Information; ...
The Supreme Court adopted the actual malice standard in its landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, [2] in which the Warren Court held that: . The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ...