Podcasts about libel laws

The most bleeping that has ever occurred on a Funny In Theory episode! Sierra and Josh breakdown the previous two straight weeks of Saints home stand action. We find out some past gossip, what various folks who have worked for the Saints think about the Saints, and does Josh look good in a dress?Thanks for listening and as always, make sure you stay up to date on the latest @funnnyintheory on our Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter!

Colum Eastwood on making faces in parliament, internet trolls and Northern Ireland's Libel laws. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Answering Viewers Questions See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today we were joined by UUP MLA for Strangford, Mike Nesbitt Discussing #UnionOfPeople , Libel Laws as well as Mandatory Coalition and a border poll. Have you got something to say? Contact us Twitter: www.twitter.com/youthvoiceni Instagram: www.instagram.com/youthvoice_ni Or read our blog www.youthvoiceni.com

To expand upon what I discussed in last week's episode, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limitations on certain types of speech. Another type of speech that is not protected is defamation--in particular (for writers, anyway), libel. I discuss the elements needed for a defamation suit, distinguish between public and private figures, and explain the "actual malice" standard for libel set forth in the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. ********************************************************************************************************** I have a Patreon page now! www.patreon.com/marisadf Email: marisadellefarfalle@gmail.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/marisadee13 Instagram: www.instagram.com/marisadf13 I'd also really appreciate it if you could take a moment to rate and review this podcast on Apple Podcasts, as it'll help a lot more people find out about the show. ********************************************************************************************************** For further reference: "First Amendment": https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254 (1964): https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan/ "What Type of Speech Is Not Protected by the First Amendment?": https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-type-of-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-34258 "Libel vs. Slander": https://www.diffen.com/difference/Libel_vs_Slander "Libel vs. Slander": https://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander "Public Figures and Officials," by Gary Bugh: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1010/public-figures-and-officials "Can I Be Sued For Libel If I Don’t Use the Person’s Name? Yes!" by Raees Mohamed: https://kellywarnerlaw.com/sued-for-libel-dont-use-name "A Quick Guide to Libel Law," by Lata Nott: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/primers/libellaw/ "Here Are the Basics of Libel Laws for Journalists," by Tony Rogers: https://www.thoughtco.com/the-basics-of-libel-and-libel-law-2073724 "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)," by Stephen Wermiel: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/186/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan

Are there any words that infuriate you to the point on pulling out your hair (Exhibit A = Mere Mortal Kyrin)? In this episode of 'Musings' Juan and Kyrin discuss: why Kyrin would hate consulting, letting yourself be more spontaneous, Juan's justified hatred of his university assessor, the crazy story of a navy seal who got shot 27 times, 800,000 US children being trafficked per year and being more careful with your words.As always, we hope you enjoy, Mere Mortals out!

In Episode 8: we discuss our right to ‘our good name'. Libel Laws are there to protect our right to protect our reputation and, if we take  a Court Case against someone who we assert has  has defamed us  – the jury makes the decision on the amount that should be paid in damages if our claim is upheld. What is the value of our reputation measured? We look at written Constitutions.

The use of libel laws to silence critics of the powerful - elected officials in particular – are being used across the region, almost in a copycat fashion. Melisa Idris and Sharaad Kuttan speak to Ratna Ariyanti, Southeast Asia Coordinator, International Federation of Journalists Asia Pacific.

America’s Founders understood the press as both a necessary component of republican government and a potential threat to political liberty. They counted on libel laws to restrain the press’s natural excesses. But the Supreme Court dramatically changed the nature of libel law in its landmark 1964 decision, New York Times v. Sullivan. How has this ruling changed the character of America’s press, and what have been long term consequences of this ruling? Should this decision be revisited? Please join us as our panel of experts consider whether stronger libel laws against the press should be revived. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Decades long protections afforded media against libel actions are being threatened to be upended by the duo of President Donald Trump and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. President Trump repeatedly has said that is should be easier to successfully sue the news media for libelous stories and that protections now afforded the media should be eradicated. He claims he will lead that charge. Just this month, he was joined in that belief by public statements made by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He is calling for the destruction of the foundational ruling in the 1964 case “New York Times v. Sullivan” which says, that to be libelous against a public official, reporters must publish falsities with actual malice. That means that to be libelous a reporter must know that the statements in a story are false or publish them with reckless disregard for their truth, according to Dr. Aimee Edmondson, graduate director of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University. Dr. Edmondson recently wrote an op-ed piece on the subject for “USA Today” saying that the easing of the standards of fault required for a libel case against a public official would stifle much needed investigative reporting and be detrimental to American journalism. She also notes that much of the aggressive reporting of the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement and Watergate would not have occurred without the protections of “New York Times v. Sullivan.” Dr. Edmondson is a journalism historian who often researches the nexus between journalism and legal issues. Her new book, “In Sullivan's Shadow: The Use and Abuse of Libel Law during the Long Civil Rights Struggle” will be published in August. Dr. Edmondson told the Spectrum Podcast that it is “ironic” that Justice Thomas, the only African-American on the Supreme Court, would be leading the attack, along with Trump, to strip away protections that encouraged courageous journalism during the Civil Rights Movement. Dr. Edmondson also explains the differences between American libel laws and those in Europe. She also notes that libel in the United States is a civil tort where one party sues another for money damages. It is not a criminal act as it is in many other countries.

In this episode of Functional Philosophy, I answer the following questions: 00:38 - "I wanted to know your take on the "rape" scene in The Fountainhead. My opinion was that Dominique "resisted" Roark (but didn't call for help), because of her inner conflict. She hated Roark and herself for desiring him because of her malevolent view of the world. But then later in the story she tells Wynand that Roark raped her and emphasised that he didn't ask for consent. That didn't make a lot of sense to me when I read it, could you explain? Was this just Ayn Rand taking artistic liberties?" 05:47 - "When I need to park on the street in my city, I don't pay the city what it's asking for, be that paying for a parking meter or the purchase of a parking pass. I am able to do so without getting parking tickets. Do you regard this as theft? If so, is this theft okay because I'm stealing from the city, who stole the wealth for the creation and upkeep of the roads I'm parking on? If it makes a difference, I'm 16 and have yet to pay taxes, so I haven't personally been stolen from. I've heard you call similar behavior a hatred/disregard for the nature reality in the past. If the same applies to my behavior, does this reflect a corrupted sense of life on my part?" 11:08 - "From an objectivist point of view, what speech is not protected as free speech? I assume like most people, myself included, you recognize calls to violence against an individual as beyond the realm of free speech. But what do you think about slander? Is it moral for you to use force against me to prevent me from calling you a child rapist? If so, what about if I call you a communist? If only the first slanderous statement should be illegal, what exactly makes that one worse?" *** Functional Philosophy is the show in which Objectivist philosopher Charles Tew helps you gain and strengthen the philosophical foundations required to achieve certainty, success, and happiness. If you're curious to see how Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism can bring revolutionary clarity to your life, give it a listen. Website: https://www.charlestew.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/charlestew Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/charlestew

Our libel laws need to be changed to punish those who slander and straight out lie for political reasons or to gain power destroying someone's life. We discuss cases where innocent men were sent to jail because of false allegations of rape. We also have news commentary and parody songs. http://politicalbombshow.cf --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Just because you don't like what someone has written about you, doesn't mean you can sue them for defamation!

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Jim Beasley Jr. from The Beasley Firm in Philadelphia to talk about libel laws.   Inspired by the book “Fire and Fury” and President Donald Trump’s reaction to the book (the president proclaimed we need to toughen up libel laws in the country), Aaron wanted to talk to an expert on libel laws to see what the President would have to prove in order to have a libel case.   Jim starts the episode by explaining the difference between libel and slander before going into the different criteria that have to be met for public figures vs. private individuals. He also explains the differences between bringing a case against a news source or a publisher vs. bringing a case against a private person.   Jim also briefly explains the history of one of the landmark libel lawsuits in our country New York Times Co. v Sullivan (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html)   Join Aaron Freiwald and Jim Beasley Jr. from The Beasley Firm here in Philadelphia as they discuss libel laws.   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Jim Beasley Jr.   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

Enrique Armijo, a professor at Elon University Law School, discusses President Trump's recent comments about strengthening U.S. libel laws, which he has criticized as too soft after the release of Michael Wolff's controversial new book, "Fire and Fury." Plus, Jonathan Brater, counsel at the Brennan Center's democracy program, discusses Supreme Court arguments in the case  Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, which will decide whether Ohio was allowed to purge voters from state election rolls after a certain period of electoral inactivity. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso.

Enrique Armijo, a professor at Elon University Law School, discusses President Trump's recent comments about strengthening U.S. libel laws, which he has criticized as too soft after the release of Michael Wolff's controversial new book, "Fire and Fury." Plus, Jonathan Brater, counsel at the Brennan Center's democracy program, discusses Supreme Court arguments in the case  Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, which will decide whether Ohio was allowed to purge voters from state election rolls after a certain period of electoral inactivity. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Sheriff Joe Arpaio For Arizona Senator, Voter Fraud Study, Libel Laws, President Trump Speaks About Robert Mueller, Media's Obsession ith President Trump, President Trump & The Postive Impact He's Made With World Leaders, H&M Controversy & Robert Deniro's Emotions.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Show discussing news, politics and culture from the perspective of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. Hosted by Amy Peikoff. Telling the NYT they'll probably "be fine" with respect to First Amendment protections, threatening to outlaw flag burning, among other things. It seems that Trump's just not that into your rights. This and more on today's show. Check out my blog an hour or two before showtime to see my program notes--all the stories, etc., I plan to discuss.

Anunt important - Conferința Umanistă http://www.eventim.ro/ro/bilete/education-science-and-human-rights-bucuresti-palatul-parlamentului-316070/event.html Pericolele lipsei de scepticism Faith healing promovat în România http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/terapia-salvatoare-cum-ne-putem-vindeca-prin-rugaciune-video-1032894.html În timp ce în America e aplicat cu ”succes” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/24/christian-couple-kills-their-second-child-with-prayer/ Victorie în schimbarea legii anti-defăimare în UK http://www.nature.com/news/england-s-libel-laws-reformed-in-a-victory-for-science-campaigners-1.12874 Scepticism pe neașteptate Horoscop pentru slăbit? Deepak Chopra are pareri legate de TEDx http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/dear-ted-is-it-bad-scienc_b_3104049.html Cum sta vaccinarea in Romania http://www.realitatea.net/pediatrii-vaccinarea-scade-ingrijorator-iar-incidenta-bolilor-inregistreaza-cresteri-alarmante_1164302.html Raport ...continue reading "Sceptici în România – Episodul 66"

Gia Milinovich chairs a panel with Rhys Morgan, Michael Marshall, Prof David Colquhoun, Changing the Libel Laws, Nicola Buckley and Rebekah Higgitt

The 'Threats to the University, Humanities, and Science Conference' was held on 20-23 July 2011. Workshop IV on the afternoon of Friday 22nd July was entitled 'Threats from the Libel Laws' was recorded and is made available here.

The 'Threats to the University, Humanities, and Science Conference' was held on 20-23 July 2011. Workshop IV on the afternoon of Friday 22nd July was entitled 'Threats from the Libel Laws' was recorded and is made available here.

The 'Threats to the University, Humanities, and Science Conference' was held on 20-23 July 2011. Workshop IV on the afternoon of Friday 22nd July was entitled 'Threats from the Libel Laws' was recorded and is made available here.

The 'Threats to the University, Humanities, and Science Conference' was held on 20-23 July 2011. Workshop IV on the afternoon of Friday 22nd July was entitled 'Threats from the Libel Laws' was recorded and is made available here.

We look at claims that free speech on the web is silenced too easily by threatening a host without ever having to prove defamation.