The courtroom aftermath of social media slugfests is among factors helping drive wider interest in insurance against defamation-suit risks even by persons who do not write for a living [Polly Mosendz, Bloomberg]
The courtroom aftermath of social media slugfests is among factors helping drive wider interest in insurance against defamation-suit risks even by persons who do not write for a living [Polly Mosendz, Bloomberg]
2 Comments
Mosendz, supra.
Can journalists purchase insurance to cover damage to their reputation from confusing “actual malice” with “acting maliciously”?
Also, why is not possible to have cases like this transferred to tabloid television? I don’t see anything in Article III specifically prohibiting it.
Couldn’t Twitter add a clause to its TOS requiring disputes between users over defamation to be arbitrated? Over Twitter?
To win a libel case, a public figure must prove actual malice. But if actual malice exists, that more or less means the libel was intentional. So this means the insurance company must pay for its policyholders’ intentional torts? That just seems weird.