Comments on: Libel insurance for non-journalists https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/06/libel-insurance-non-journalists/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Wed, 14 Jun 2017 03:34:08 +0000 hourly 1 By: David C https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/06/libel-insurance-non-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-345969 Wed, 14 Jun 2017 03:34:08 +0000 https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=64858#comment-345969 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.

]]> By: Simon Spero https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/06/libel-insurance-non-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-345966 Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:29:19 +0000 https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=64858#comment-345966

In the case brought by her former attorney, Love won because she wasn’t found to have acted maliciously, although a jury found (PDF) her tweet to be false.

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?

]]>