Podcasts about Defamation

Visit https://Hungryroot.com/LAWNERD for 40% off your first box PLUS get a free item in every box for life. Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/DnBNuCfDqq8  The gloves are officially off! Karen Reed has filed a sweeping 46-page civil lawsuit against nearly a dozen defendants, alleging a massive conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and civil rights violations. Karen Reed is suing Former Trooper Michael Proctor, Sgt Yurity Bukhenik, Lt. Brian Tully, Brian Albert, Nicole Albert, Jennifer McCabe, Matthew McCabe and Brian Higgins. Massachusetts State Police and the Town of Canton will be added later. A deep dive into each 7 causes of action, including Malicious Prosecution, Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights, IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress), and Civil Conspiracy. A look at the profound emotional and financial toll cited in the complaint, including the loss of her career, home, and the exacerbation of her health conditions. There is also the motion to combine this new civil suit with the O'Keefe family's Wrongful Death Lawsuit for discovery and trial efficiencies. Don't miss the latest updates on this monumental case! RESOURCES Karen Read Trial 1 Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTS  Karen Read Trial 2 Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gL3CbMJHvrKiAD1aDNcblnO  Witnesses Sue for Defamation - https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/several-karen-read-witnesses-consider-defamation-claims-report/3847001/  Alan Jackson's Statement - https://x.com/TedDanielnews/status/1990821055645073866?s=20 McCabe, Alberts, Higgins Statement - https://x.com/TedDanielnews/status/1990846795451441606?s=20 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

"Crossing The Defamation Line" Cameron Moore and Jamie Sasson discuss with Silk their defamation lawsuit against the Daily Mail. Tonight at 10pm ET on Lindell TV. #DiamondandSilk http://DiamondandSilkMedia.com Use Promo Code: DIAMOND or TRUMPWON 1. http://DiamondandSilkStore.com2. https://thedrardisshow.com/shop-all/?aff=123. http://PatchThat.com4. https://cardiomiracle.com/?ref=DIAMOND5. https://MyPillow.com/TrumpWon6. https://DrStellaMD.com7. https://www.Curativabay.com/?aff=18. http://MaskDerma.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Diddy is in danger of losing his defamation lawsuit against NBC. Laney Wilson hosted the 2025 CMAs and won big!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Gettysburg AddressOn November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, months after the blood-soaked Civil War battle that left over 50,000 dead or wounded. The speech nearly didn't make it—Lincoln's draft was reportedly misplaced during the train ride to Gettysburg, and he completed the final version just the night before the ceremony. The headliner that day was Edward Everett, a famed orator who delivered a two-hour address rich in historical detail and classical references. Lincoln followed with a two-minute speech of just 271 words.Drawing inspiration from Pericles' Funeral Oration in ancient Athens, Lincoln sought to elevate the sacrifices of Union soldiers into a reaffirmation of democratic ideals. He framed the war as a test of whether a nation “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” could endure. In his address, Lincoln humbly suggested that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,” asserting that the deeds of the fallen, not words, would be remembered by future generations.Afterward, Lincoln reportedly told his bodyguard, “that speech won't scour,” using a Midwestern farming phrase to express doubt about its impact. But Everett, recognizing its brilliance, wrote to Lincoln the next day to say that the president had accomplished in two minutes what he had failed to do in two hours. Indeed, Everett himself is now most famous for his connection to Lincoln's words. Though met with mixed reviews at the time, the speech has since eclipsed the Battle of Gettysburg itself in cultural memory and certainly legal significance.Lincoln's words at Gettysburg echoed something he had written five years earlier, after his defeat in the 1858 Illinois Senate race to Stephen Douglas. Reflecting on what seemed like the end of his political career, Lincoln wrote, “and though I now sink out of view, and shall be forgotten, I believe I have made some marks which will tell for the cause of civil liberty long after I am gone.” These words, penned just two years before he became president, speak to Lincoln's deep conviction that principles—not personal success—leave the most enduring legacy. The Gettysburg Address ultimately became one of those “marks,” still telling for the cause of civil liberty over 160 years later.The Gettysburg Address endures not just as a piece of oratory but as a touchstone of American constitutional values, echoing through the Fourteenth Amendment and generations of civil rights jurisprudence.A federal judge in Virginia will hear arguments from former FBI Director James Comey's legal team seeking dismissal of criminal charges against him, alleging the case was politically motivated by President Donald Trump's long-standing animosity. Comey's lawyers argue the prosecution is a form of “vindictive” retaliation for his public criticism of Trump, who has often called for Comey's prosecution since firing him in 2017. Comey, charged in September with making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation, has pleaded not guilty and is pursuing multiple avenues to have the case thrown out before trial.The hearing will also examine the controversial role of Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump personal lawyer with no prosecutorial background, appointed as interim U.S. Attorney overseeing the case. A separate judge is reviewing whether Halligan's appointment was lawful, while a magistrate judge recently flagged serious procedural concerns with how she handled the grand jury that indicted Comey. Prosecutors maintain that Trump's public statements and criticism of Comey do not meet the legal threshold for a vindictive prosecution claim and argue the charges are legitimate.Comey's case is part of a broader pattern, with other Trump critics, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former national security adviser John Bolton, also facing charges following Trump's calls for retribution. Legal observers are closely watching whether courts will allow such prosecutions to proceed given the appearance of political targeting.US judge to weigh Trump's influence over case against ex-FBI chief Comey | ReutersCravath, Swaine & Moore has kicked off the 2025 year-end bonus season for major U.S. law firms by announcing associate bonuses of up to $140,000. According to an internal memo, standard year-end bonuses will range from $15,000 for first-year associates (on a pro-rated basis) to $115,000 for the most senior associates. Additionally, the firm will issue special bonuses between $6,000 and $25,000, aligning with bonus levels previously set by competitor Milbank.Cravath, long viewed as a market-setter in associate compensation, made the announcement on Tuesday, prompting at least one other major firm—Paul Hastings—to follow suit with matching payouts. These bonuses mirror those issued last year, maintaining pressure on peer firms to remain competitive in compensation.Currently, associates at top U.S. firms earn base salaries ranging from $225,000 to $435,000 depending on seniority. Firms often wait for Cravath to act before making their own compensation decisions. The announcement comes amid strong financial performance across the legal sector, with a surge in client demand—especially for transactional work—reported in the third quarter. Analysts suggest this demand positions firms for a profitable close to 2025.Cravath sets pace for US law firm bonuses, promising associates up to $140K | ReutersCravath Doles Out Associate Bonuses Ranging Up to $140,000 (2)The U.S. Senate is set to question Michael Selig, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), with a focus on his views on cryptocurrency regulation and election betting markets. Selig, currently the chief counsel for the SEC's crypto task force and an adviser to Republican SEC chair Paul Atkins, has been an outspoken supporter of pro-crypto policies. In a recent social media post, he pledged to help make the U.S. the “Crypto Capital of the World.”Trump's administration has embraced the crypto sector, rolling back enforcement efforts and enacting a regulatory framework for stablecoins. The CFTC could gain expanded oversight powers under the proposed CLARITY Act, which passed the House in July and is now being reviewed by the Senate. That legislation aims to clarify when a digital asset is a commodity versus a security, a long-standing jurisdictional issue between the CFTC and the SEC.Selig's nomination follows the withdrawal of Trump's earlier pick, Brian Quintenz, who alleged his nomination was derailed by pressure from major crypto donors, the Winklevoss twins. Senators are expected to press Selig on his approach to inter-agency cooperation, how he would regulate crypto spot markets, and how the CFTC might handle politically sensitive areas like election betting. Currently, only one commissioner remains on the CFTC, Republican Caroline Pham, who is serving as acting chair and has signaled plans to step down once a new leader is confirmed.Senate to grill Trump's pick for CFTC head on crypto regulation | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on Tuesday that Donald Trump cannot revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN over its use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his false claims about the 2020 presidential election. Trump filed the suit in 2022, arguing that the phrase linked him to Nazi propaganda and unfairly compared him to Adolf Hitler. However, both the district court and the appeals court found that CNN's language constituted protected opinion, not provable falsehoods.The court emphasized that Trump failed to demonstrate that CNN's statements were factually false, which is a necessary element of a defamation claim. While Trump asserted that “Big Lie” was unambiguous and defamatory, the panel disagreed, finding the term inherently subjective and open to interpretation—particularly in political contexts. They noted that if politically charged terms like “fascist” are ambiguous, then “Big Lie,” which is facially apolitical, must be considered at least as ambiguous.Trump had also tried to compare CNN's interpretation of his actions to his own self-assessment, in which he saw himself as exercising constitutional rights. But the court held that differing views on Trump's conduct are subjective and not subject to clear proof. The district court's refusal to reconsider or allow Trump to amend the complaint was upheld, as he failed to present new evidence or show any legal error.The opinion was issued per curiam by Judges Adalberto Jordan, Kevin Newsom, and Elizabeth Branch.Trump Fails to Revive Defamation Suit Against CNN Over ‘Big Lie' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome back to AI Unraveled, the podcast that cuts through the hype to deliver zero-noise, high-signal intelligence on the world of artificial intelligence.Host Connection & Engagement:Email The Show: info@djamgatech.comConnect with Etienne on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/enoumen/Newsletter: https://enoumen.substack.com/Source at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-liability-from-engineering-agi-governance-preparing-post-agi-icxccThis episode delivers a comprehensive analysis of the escalating legal liability risks created by Generative AI, stressing that engineering choices are fundamentally legal decisions. We contrast two primary AI architectures, Fine-Tuning and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), arguing that one internalizes opaque, catastrophic risk (copyright, privacy) while the other externalizes traceable, operational risk (defamation, market substitution).Learn about emerging legal doctrines, including the shift to classifying AI as a "product" subject to strict product liability and the existential threat of algorithmic disgorgement—an order forcing companies to destroy their core models.Ultimately, we frame the current LLM governance debates as essential training for the future control of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), concluding that the auditable RAG model represents a superior, provable path for future governance compared to the opaque fine-tuning approach.⏱️ Timestamped Breakdown:[00:00] Introduction & The Escalating AI Liability Risk Landscape[02:15] Why Your Engineering Choices are Now Legal Decisions[05:40] Fine-Tuning vs. RAG: Contrasting Opaque vs. Traceable Risk in AI ArchitectureFine-Tuning: Internalized catastrophic risks (Copyright, Privacy).RAG: Externalized operational risks (Defamation, Market Substitution).[11:00] Emerging Legal Doctrines: AI as a "Product" and Strict Product Liability[15:30] The Existential Threat: What is Algorithmic Disgorgement?[19:45] LLM Governance as Training for Post-AGI Legal Frameworks

        B. BBC DEFAMATION AND THE NEED FOR REFORM Guest: Professor Richard Epstein Professor Epstein discusses the BBC's alleged defamation of President Trump through edited footage. Unlike US law, British defamation has a low bar, though damages may be smaller. Epstein contends that the BBC's reputational damage is enormous and suggests the institution is "thoroughly rotten" due to corruption and political capture. He advocates for cleansing the operation and breaking up the public monopoly.

"Video may have killed the radio star but streaming and individual choices in music killed the video. Paramount Global has begun shutting down Mtv channels in Europe and reports are that soon it will come to the United States. Mtv is 44 and it looks like it may not make it to 45. "

AP correspondent Ed Donahue reports the BBC says its sorry to President Trump.

Donald Trump says he’ll sue the BBC for a $1 billion; part of a pattern of lawsuits over what Trump says is unfair and selective reporting. What exactly did the BBC do to enrage Trump - and should Australia’s own ABC be worried? Read more about this story, plus see photos, videos and additional reporting, on the website or on The Australian’s app. This episode of The Front is presented by Claire Harvey, produced by Kristen Amiet and edited by Tiffany Dimmack. Our team includes Kristen Amiet, Lia Tsamoglou, Joshua Burton, Stephanie Coombes and Jasper Leak, who also composed our music. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this flash livestream from 11 November 2025, Stefan Molyneux exposes the BBC. He discusses oppressive enforcement tactics and a recent controversy over misleading edits in a BBC documentary about Trump, stressing the need for context in journalism. Molyneux highlights the implications of state-funded media on democracy and advocates for the importance of free expression in a polarized world.SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneuxFollow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

EP 549 The Price of Defamation: Kidero's Freedom, The 'Gender Card' Lawsuit! & Mosiria Hides

"At least three record companies have extended million dollar contracts to people who create AI music. The US Copyright office has said it will begin extending protection those who use AI as a tool. The PROs will extend licensing. We will tell you what is going on."

A District Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Montezuma-Cortez Re-1 School Superintendent Tom Burris against a local man.

Today is Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025. The Brainerd Dispatch Minute is a product of Forum Communications Co. and is brought to you by reporters at the Brainerd Dispatch. Find more news throughout the day at BrainerdDispatch.com.

"The number changes, but as of the writing of this description, only 1883 songs have topped the Billboard Hot 100 chart including all its earlier versions. This week back in 1990, the first rap song topped the chart. That got me wondering how many other firsts and other interesting facts surround the top spot. Here is a list."

Visit: RadioLawTalk.com for information & full episodes! Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/RLTFacebook Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/RLTTwitter Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/RLTInstagram Subscribe to our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Owf1BEB-klmtD_92-uqzg Your Radio Law Talk hosts are exceptional attorneys and love what they do! They take breaks from their day jobs and make time for Radio Law Talk so that the rest of the country can enjoy the law like they do. Follow Radio Law Talk on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter & Instagram!

A group of alleged counterfeiters was just grabbed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in New York City. It was a group that's believed to have been around for years, operating out of Chinatown.Meanwhile, a new lawsuit is targeting what's being described as AI defamation targeting conservatives—and it's being brought by filmmaker Robby Starbuck against Google.We'll discuss these topics and others, in this episode of Crossroads.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

"The NOW CDs, as they are often called, started in the UK in 1998 with Richard Branson. They were a hit out of the gate, each crafted to a specific formula. They are a professionally made mix tape. We have the full history and a good bit of trivia about the series."

Two fronts opened against Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown over her Epstein reporting and book. First, multiple defamation suits were filed by people portrayed in her work: Epstein survivors Courtney Wild and Haley Robson alleged Brown misrepresented their experiences and, in Robson's case, cast her as a collaborator rather than a victim; and Ghislaine Maxwell's former assistant Emmy Tayler filed her own defamation action over claims that she “organized” Epstein's massages. The Tayler matter proved especially damaging to Brown's publisher: HarperCollins issued a formal apology in 2024 acknowledging Tayler was defamed in the UK edition and wrongly inserted into the narrative—an extraordinary concession that undercut the book's editorial due diligence and handed ammunition to critics who said Brown's project sometimes sacrificed precision for impact.Second, Brown became embroiled in a contractual fight with private investigator Michael (Mike) Fisten, who said he'd been cut out of a promised collaboration and sued for compensation tied to the book deal. That dispute showcased the commercial tug-of-war behind high-profile “accountability” bestsellers: Fisten's early winless turn in arbitration (rejecting his $350k claim) didn't end the saga, which spilled into Miami-Dade court and later reached Florida's Third District Court of Appeal. The upshot is a messy, credibility-draining litigation trail: while Brown's reporting helped reignite scrutiny of Epstein, the courtroom aftermath—defamation claims from survivors, a publisher's apology to Tayler, and a protracted fight with a key investigator—has raised uncomfortable questions about methods, attribution, and whether the rush to own the narrative came at the expense of accuracy and fair dealing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Two fronts opened against Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown over her Epstein reporting and book. First, multiple defamation suits were filed by people portrayed in her work: Epstein survivors Courtney Wild and Haley Robson alleged Brown misrepresented their experiences and, in Robson's case, cast her as a collaborator rather than a victim; and Ghislaine Maxwell's former assistant Emmy Tayler filed her own defamation action over claims that she “organized” Epstein's massages. The Tayler matter proved especially damaging to Brown's publisher: HarperCollins issued a formal apology in 2024 acknowledging Tayler was defamed in the UK edition and wrongly inserted into the narrative—an extraordinary concession that undercut the book's editorial due diligence and handed ammunition to critics who said Brown's project sometimes sacrificed precision for impact.Second, Brown became embroiled in a contractual fight with private investigator Michael (Mike) Fisten, who said he'd been cut out of a promised collaboration and sued for compensation tied to the book deal. That dispute showcased the commercial tug-of-war behind high-profile “accountability” bestsellers: Fisten's early winless turn in arbitration (rejecting his $350k claim) didn't end the saga, which spilled into Miami-Dade court and later reached Florida's Third District Court of Appeal. The upshot is a messy, credibility-draining litigation trail: while Brown's reporting helped reignite scrutiny of Epstein, the courtroom aftermath—defamation claims from survivors, a publisher's apology to Tayler, and a protracted fight with a key investigator—has raised uncomfortable questions about methods, attribution, and whether the rush to own the narrative came at the expense of accuracy and fair dealing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A supremely awkward hosting dilemma at Nine Entertainment’s Today program is just one of the human resources nightmares unfolding in broadcast television. Read more about this story, plus see photos, videos and additional reporting, on the website or on The Australian’s app. This episode of The Front is presented and produced by Claire Harvey and edited by Tiffany Dimmack. Our team includes Kristen Amiet, Lia Tsamoglou, Joshua Burton, Stephanie Coombes and Jasper Leak, who also composed our music. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"Cryptozoology is the study of a creature that probably doesn ot exist. Think Bigfoot. What is great about it is that every state seems to have its own monster. Maybe people really do think it exists or maybe it was invented to scare children at Halloween. We built up a list along with songs about candy. It is Halloween 2025."

     Slam the Gavel welcomes back Carrie Haight to the podcast. Carrie was last on Season 5, Episodes 185, 221 and 266. Today we addressed parents' questions regarding Coercive Control, Parental Alienation, Child Psychological Abuse in the DSM V, V995.51, and why Family Court favors the abusive parent. We covered other topics as well such as going "grey rock," reunification, toxic personalities within friends and family and how anyone going through the family court system can be easily gaslighted.To Reach Carrie Haight:  atimeforchange@live.comSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. For information only and no affiliation with legislation, bills or laws. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright.Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Former minister Linda Reynolds - Brittany Higgins’ ex-boss - wants justice. Her new targets: Labor foes Penny Wong and Katy Gallagher. You can read more about this story, plus see photos, videos and additional reporting, on the website or on The Australian’s app. This episode of The Front is presented and produced by Claire Harvey and edited by Tiffany Dimmack. Our team includes Kristen Amiet, Lia Tsamoglou, Joshua Burton, Stephanie Coombes and Jasper Leak, who also composed our music. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia and coined the name “Wikipedia' in 2001. He established many of Wikipedia's founding policies, including the original neutrality guidelines, before he left in 2002.Since then, he has become a vocal critic of Wikipedia's growing ideological bias, particularly on politically charged issues.Sanger says certain outlets are favored as sources while others are blacklisted, creating systemic distortion and exclusion of dissenting views.Most of Wikipedia's top editors are anonymous, which means that people have no legal recourse for lies or inaccuracies about them that may be published on Wikipedia's pages.In this episode, Sanger breaks down what went wrong with Wikipedia and how it can be reformed.Sanger has put forward nine theses for reform, including enabling competing articles, restoring original neutrality policies, convening an editorial assembly, and creating transparent rating systems for entries.But what is the likelihood it will happen? Can—and should—Congress do something about it? And could Elon Musk's Grokipedia offer a more balanced alternative?Editor's Note: The Wikimedia Foundation did not immediately respond to our request for comment.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

October 15, 2025 ~ Lloyd and Jamie talk with Matthew Schneider, former U.S. attorney of the Eastern District of Michigan, about the Supreme Court rejecting Alex Jones' attempt to block a $1.5 billion defamation judgment. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Linktree: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠Join The Normandy For Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here: ⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠Join Analytic Dreamz on Notorious Mass Effect for an in-depth analysis of the Drake v. UMG lawsuit dismissal! On October 9, 2025, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas dismissed Drake's defamation case against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar's “Not Like Us,” ruling its lyrics as “nonactionable opinion” and hyperbolic rap battle rhetoric. Filed in January 2025, Drake claimed UMG knowingly promoted false accusations. Vargas called the Drake-Lamar feud, spanning 8–9 diss tracks, “hip-hop's most infamous.” Analytic Dreamz explores the Grammy-winning track's cultural impact, UMG's First Amendment win, and Drake's appeal plans. From Super Bowl performances to legal precedents, get the full breakdown of this landmark hip-hop case with Analytic Dreamz! Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

AP correspondent Julie Walker reports the Supreme Court rejects Alex Jones' appeal of his $1.4 billion defamation judgment over the Sandy Hook shooting.

Welcome to the weekly News Roundup! Bridget and Producer Mike recap the week's tech stories that you might have missed. It’s True: The Internet Skews the Reality of Women (and Men) in the Workforce https://www.motherjones.com/media/2025/10/nature-study-berkeley-haas-online-internet-images-gender-bias-workforce-false-reality-women/ Read the study (Guilbeault et al., 2025) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09581-z Google Women Techmakers moves to Technovation, but not everyone is cheering https://piunikaweb.com/2025/10/08/google-women-techmakers-moves-to-technovation/ Robin Williams’ daughter begs fans to stop sending her AI videos of her late father: ‘Just stop doing this to him' https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/films/news/robin-williams-daughter-zelda-ai-videos-b2840650.html and https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/10/dj-bruce-lee-and-jackass-mr-rogers-dead-celebrities-become-puppets-in-sora-2-videos/ 'Coward of a man' kills 2 teenage girls in NJ after mom's warnings were dismissed. https://archive.is/aMOV9 Kendrick's Drake Diss Defamation Dismissed https://www.billboard.com/pro/drake-lawsuit-kendrick-lamar-not-like-us-dismissed-judge/ Send us an email for the upcoming mailbag episode! hello@tangoti.com If you’re listening on Spotify, you can leave a comment there to let us know what you thought about these stories. Follow Bridget and TANGOTI on social media! || instagram.com/bridgetmarieindc/ || tiktok.com/@bridgetmarieindc || youtube.com/@ThereAreNoGirlsOnTheInternet See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This conversation delves into the complexities of intentional torts, focusing on defamation, privacy torts, and economic torts. The discussion highlights essential elements, defenses, and constitutional considerations that law students must grasp for exams. Key topics include the nuances of defamation per se, the defenses available to defendants, the impact of the First Amendment on defamation claims, and the evolving landscape of privacy rights in the digital age. The conversation also touches on intentional business torts, emphasizing the importance of understanding the legal frameworks surrounding economic relationships.In the intricate world of tort law, understanding the nuances of defamation, privacy, and business torts is crucial for law students and professionals alike. This deep dive explores the essential elements and defenses of these torts, providing a comprehensive framework for tackling exam hypotheticals and real-world legal challenges.Defamation: Defamation is a tort that involves harming someone's reputation through false statements. Key distinctions include defamation per se, where damages are presumed, and the necessity of proving actual harm. The defenses of truth and opinion play a significant role, with the U. S. and Commonwealth approaches offering nuanced differences.Privacy Torts: Intrusion upon seclusion, a critical privacy tort, requires intentional or reckless invasion of private affairs, causing highly offensive distress. Recent Canadian cases highlight limitations in holding companies liable for third-party data breaches, emphasizing the need for tangible loss through other legal avenues.Business Torts: Intentional interference with contractual relations and negligent misrepresentation are vital for protecting economic interests. Understanding the elements of these torts, including the independently wrongful act requirement, is essential for distinguishing valid claims from legitimate competition.Mastering the definitions, elements, and constitutional frameworks of these torts is paramount for legal success. As technology evolves, the intersection of identity, performance, and public discourse presents new challenges, making it imperative for future lawyers to navigate these complexities with precision.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal insights and developments.TakeawaysIntentional torts are crucial for law students to understand.Defamation involves harming someone's reputation through false statements.Defamation per se simplifies proving damages in certain cases.Truth serves as an absolute defense against defamation claims.Opinions are generally protected from defamation unless they imply false facts.Absolute privilege allows certain statements to be immune from defamation liability.Public figures must prove actual malice to win defamation cases.Intrusion upon seclusion is increasingly relevant in the digital age.The right of publicity encompasses various interests and legal challenges.Intentional interference protects economic relationships from wrongful disruption.torts, defamation, privacy, intentional torts, economic torts, law students, constitutional law, business torts, reputation, legal defenses

"Many music outlets noticed there was no traditional Summer Song this year. No poppy dance tune that rose to the top of the charts. The Billboard Summer Song chart claimed a number one but it was a down tempo ballad. We will explore what happened and why."

AP's Lisa Dwyer reports artist Drake has lost a legal battle.

Drake just lost his defamation case against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar's “Not Like Us,” with a federal judge ruling the lyrics were protected opinion, not fact. Drake had claimed UMG wrongfully released and promoted the diss track, which accused him of being a pedophile — allegations he said were false and damaging. The court, however, determined that diss tracks aren't taken literally by the public, and UMG celebrated the dismissal, calling the lawsuit “an affront to artistic expression.” Hosts: Jason Beckerman & Derek Kaufman Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

There's a season every entrepreneur hits the one where it looks like everything's falling apart. I'm lifting the hood to talk about my life LIFING in this season. The team's shifting, the systems aren't clicking, the identity you built your business on suddenly doesn't fit anymore.But underneath the chaos… you're actually being built for your biggest breakthrough yet.In this episode, I'm sharing the story of the season where it all started to click — but only after I stopped resisting the rebuild.We'll talk about:How to navigate the “identity gap” when you're no longer who you were, but not yet who you're becoming.The mindset that turned my stall into setup.How to tell if you're in a real growth season (even when it looks like contraction).If you've been craving momentum but everything feels like it's falling apart this episode is your permission slip to trust the rebuild.References in the podcast: Join my Sales Masterclass → DM me “seat” ON IG Dive into my Brand Masterclass → DM me “brand” on InstagramOr start with the Story Selling Mini Course → [LINK]

122 MinutesNSFWPete and members of the Old Glory Club talk about the latest headlines w/ guest Kevin DeAnna.Identity PoliticsKevin at American RenaissanceKevin on Twitter/XOld Glory Club YouTube ChannelOld Glory Club SubstackOld Glory Club WebsitePete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Kim Kardashian has launched a defamation lawsuit against Ray J over his assertions that she and Kris Jenner are under federal investigation for racketeering—a claim her team strongly denies and calls entirely baseless. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Rickey Smiley Morning Show dug deep into four headline-making stories: Kim Kardashian has launched a defamation lawsuit against Ray J over his assertions that she and Kris Jenner are under federal investigation for racketeering—a claim her team strongly denies and calls entirely baseless. Meanwhile, media mogul Cathy Hughes celebrated 45 years of building Urban One from her radio-station roots into a powerhouse reaching over 80% of Black households. In a lighter, yet equally compelling segment, legendary producers Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis joined the show to reflect on their multi-decade careers shaping R&B and pop, teasing projects and sharing studio stories most fans haven’t heard. And on the national front, President Trump has formally declared a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels, justifying recent lethal strikes on alleged narco-vessels in the Caribbean under the law of armed conflict. Website: https://www.urban1podcasts.com/rickey-smiley-morning-show See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"Many countries around the world take time each year to poll their citizens about their favorite songs. It usually happens around Christmas and a major media outlet plays the songs. We will tell you about some of the biggest ones and try to figure out why we don't do that here in America."