Father of Sandy Hook victim sues extremists on defamation charges
Sandy Hook victim sues extremists on defamation charges
The father of a boy slain in the Sandy Hook shootings who is suing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has taken two more extremists to court on defamation charges.
The father, Leonard Pozner, whose son Noah was among the 26 first-graders and educators killed by a gunman at Sandy Hook School, is suing James Fetzer and Mike Palecek, co-editors of “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook,” on defamation and conspiracy charges.
Fetzer and Palecek claim, among other things, that Pozner forged his son’s death certificate to advance the hoax.
Dr. Luke And Kesha Are Doubling Down On Rape And Defamation Allegations As A Trial Date Nears
Kesha Are Doubling Down On Rape And Defamation Allegations As A Trial Date Nears
Dr. Luke and Kesha are doubling down on accusations of rape, abuse, defamation, and breach of contract as a trial to settle the legal fight nears.
Dr. Luke and Kesha filed competing motions Thursday in an effort to convince a judge in New York to take their side in the legal standoff before a trial is scheduled, likely for next year.
Kesha has been locked in a legal battle with Dr. Luke (whose legal name is Lukasz Gottwald) since October 2014, when they filed competing lawsuits against each other.
Kesha sued the music producer in California, alleging sexual assault and battery, harassment, gender violence, unfair business practices, and infliction of emotional distress.
Dr. Luke filed a complaint in New York for breach of contract and defamation, claiming Kesha’s allegations were merely a tactic to pressure him and his record label to release her from her contract.
Dr. Luke and Kesha are doubling down on accusations of rape, abuse, defamation, and breach of contract as a trial to settle the legal fight nears. Dr. Luke and Kesha filed competing motions Thursday in an effort to convince a judge in New York to take their side in the legal standoff before a trial is scheduled, likely for next year. Kesha has been locked in a legal battle with Dr. Luke (whose legal name is Lukasz Gottwald) since October 2014, when they filed competing lawsuits against each other.
PM’s counsel questions defamation suit’s maintainability
The lawyer for Prime Minister Imran Khan on Thursday requested a local court to return the defamation lawsuit filed by former MPA Fauzia Bibi against his client over the horse-trading charge, insisting it isn’t authorised to hear the case.
The premier’s counsel, Babar Awan, filed an application with additional district and sessions judge Shah Waliullah Hamid Hashmi under Order 7 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure saying the news conference addressed by his client on the matter was held in Islamabad and not in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and therefore, the case wasn’t maintainable.
The court directed the plaintiff’s counsel, Syed Gufranullah Shah, to file a written reply to the application and fixed Dec 12 for the hearing into the case.
The former MPA, who was elected on PTI’s ticket on a seat reserved for women, has filed the lawsuit for the recovery of damages to the tune of Rs500 million for defaming her through leveling ‘baseless’ allegations against her by Mr Imran in a news conference accusing her of selling her vote in the Senate elections.
The lawsuit was filed in June this year under the Defamation Ordinance 2002. The only defendant in the lawsuit was PTI chief Imran Khan, who later became the prime minister.
Mr Babar Awan contended that the news conference in question was addressed in Islamabad, whereas the committee constituted for taking action against the plaintiff was also constituted there.
He added that as the cause of action arose there and therefore, it was not in the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the case.
Following several hearings into the case, the court had decided on Oct 24 to begin ex-parte proceeding against Prime Minister Imran Khan over his failure to respond to the court’s summons despite repeated notices.
However, Mr Babar Awan later submitted his power of attorney (wakalatnama) on behalf of the prime minister and requested the court to recall its order of conducting ex-parte proceedings against his client.
Plaintiff Fauzia Bibi said in the March 3 Senate polls, she had followed the direction with effect to vote for all candidates of her party nominated for general and reserved seats for women and technocrats.
She added that Imran Khan later accused her through media of being involved in horse-trading.
The plaintiff said she clarified her position by taking oath on the Holy Quran and denied the allegations and that she even replied to the show cause notice issued by the PTI Secretariat to her on the defendant’s directives.
Facebook Blocks ‘Defamatory’ Post in Compliance With Russian Court Order
Russian Court Order
Facebook has reportedly blocked a post on its social media networks in compliance with a recent Russian law that calls on tech giants to block content ruled defamatory by judges in what internet freedom advocates predict will become a common practice.
Over the past five years, Russia has introduced tougher internet laws that require companies to delete certain search results, share encryption keys of messaging services with security services and store Russian users’ personal social media data on servers within the country.
In October, a district court in Moscow ordered 40 websites, including Facebook and Instagram, to block content it said had discredited the reputation of a Kazakh bank owner, the Kommersant business daily reported Monday.
Is Ukraine set to recriminalize defamation ?
recriminalize defamation ?
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) calls on Ukraine’s parliamentarians to refrain from adopting draconian legislation in the run-up to the next general election and, in particular, to reject a bill that would recriminalize defamation, making it punishable by up to three years in prison.
Ukraine’s decriminalization of defamation 17 years ago was a major democratic achievement that would be reversed by the law that three ruling party representatives proposed on 20 November.
“Recriminalizing defamation would be a disturbing step backwards, a step towards the Russian model, one that would violate Ukraine’s international obligations and democratic pledges,” said Johann Bihr, the head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk. “We urge parliamentarians to reject this bill and to refrain from any other draconian initiative.”
The Online Citizen website under police investigation for criminal defamation
Online Citizen website under police investigation for criminal defamation
Socio-political website The Online Citizen (TOC) is being investigated by the police for criminal defamation after it published an article alleging that government officers are corrupt and the country’s Constitution has been doctored.
The article, published two weeks ago and titled The Take Away from Seah Kian Peng’s Facebook Post, “made serious allegations that the Government’s highest officers are corrupt and that the Constitution has been tampered with”, the police said.
In response to TODAY’s queries, the police confirmed that a report has been made against TOC and the article’s writer Willy Sum.
Rebel Wilson loses bid to keep most of the defamation payout
Rebel Wilson said she was glad she’d stood up to “a bully” despite losing her bid Friday to keep most of the record payout awarded to her in her defamation case against an Australian magazine.
The actress had sued Woman’s Day magazine last year over a series of articles in 2015 that she said had painted her as someone who’d lied about her real name, age and childhood in order to make it in Hollywood.
The Supreme Court of Victoria state awarded her an Australian-record payout of NZ$4.94 million after a jury concluded she’d missed out on film roles because of the articles. Wilson had sought NZ$7.27 million in damages.
But this June the amount was reduced by 90 per cent after the magazine’s publishers, Bauer Media, appealed. Victoria’s Court of Appeal said Wilson could not prove economic loss, or that she’d missed out on film contracts as a result of the articles. The court ordered the actress to pay back almost NZ$4.36m), and 80 percent of Bauer’s legal costs.
“In our opinion there are insufficient prospects that an appeal will succeed,” Justice Virginia Bell said at the court in the national capital, Canberra.
The magazine publisher welcomed the decision. “Bauer Media is invested in its Australian business now more than ever,” Bauer chief executive Paul Dykzeul said in a statement. “Our audience trust our content and our writers and they love our iconic brands like Woman’s Day and Australian Women’s Weekly.”
Wilson, who sat in the front row of the public gallery during the brief hearing, said outside the court she was glad the process had been brought to an end.
“This has been a long fight and a long journey in the courts, but the great thing about today is that it brings it to a definitive end,” she told reporters.
“The whole reason for bringing this case is that I wanted to stand up to a bully, which is Bauer Media.”
Wilson said she was proud of herself for “seeing it out right to the bitter end,” and that she was glad the initial jury had “restored my reputation”.
“Today was just about a small point of special damages and for me it was never about the money, it was about standing up to a bully and I’ve done that.”
#MeToo: Lawyers Say Defamation Cases Being Used To Intimidate Survivors
Defamation Cases Being Used To Intimidate Survivors
Sometime around October this year, 27-year-old Nidhi Khanna, who is in her fifth year of law practice, came across a #MeToo allegation that left her appalled.
“A woman tweeted that she was sexually harassed as she was forced to give a blowjob to a man.
But, what happened to her was rape,” the lawyer who specialises in civil and rights based cases shares.
Khanna feels several women calling out their abusers are unaware of the legal parameters and how they can seek redressal.
India’s MeToo movement gained significant ground on social media in mid-September 2018 after actor Tanushree Dutta spoke up against co-actor Nana Patekar.
The unprecedented outpouring of anger and solidarity took many forms, with many women taking to social media to name and shame perpetrators.
Taking the cause to its legal end, over 80 lawyers from across the country volunteered on Twitter to provide pro bono legal advice to survivors.
Subsequently, a directory in the form of an excel sheet with their contact details was created by Mumbai-based lawyer Rutuja Shinde and shared on multiple social media platforms.
When #metoo meets defamation law, and a brutal political culture
It is no coincidence that as the #metoo movement ricochets around the world, in Australia we find ourselves at the centre of a four-way collision between a cultural change on respect for women, a global surge of female anger, our stringent defamation laws, and a brutal political culture.
The Joyce, Rush and Foley cases all involve allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct against powerful men, made by women who did not want those allegations made public.
In the Joyce case the complainant wanted her report to be dealt with in-house by the National Party.
In the Foley case, the alleged victim of his sexual harassment did not even make a complaint.
Such was her fear and/or her discretion, she even urged a male witness to the alleged incident to stay silent, too.
The institution to which Foley belongs – the NSW Labor party – knew of the allegations, at least in general terms, but felt no need to proactively investigate them, relying on the assurances of the man at the centre of them.
The result is that alleged victims have been thrust reluctantly into defending the truth of the claims they never wanted made public.
The toll on all three women has been serious, and many believe, unjust.
What happens when the free-speech values of the #metoo movement meet the straitjacket of our defamation laws?
“Our defamation laws favour the plaintiff,” says Barbara McDonald, a professor of law at the University of Sydney.
“It is very easy to defame someone. It is very easy to say something that makes other people think less of someone.
“The onus is then shifted to the defendant to defend that claim. Not only do you have to defend literally what you said, you also have to defend the imputation that the ordinary reader would draw from what you said.”
It is very different to the American situation, where there is a First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.