defamation: Last News

failed court challenge in a libel lawsuit.The Duke of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers Ltd. over an article that said Harry tried to hide his efforts to retain publicly funded protection in the UK after leaving his role as a working member of the royal family.Justice Matthew Nicklin ruled Friday in the High Court in London that the publisher has a “real prospect” of showing that statements issued on Harry’s behalf were misleading and that the February 2022 article reflected an “honest opinion” and wasn’t libelous.“The defendant may well submit that this was a masterclass in the art of ‘spinning,’” Nicklin wrote, in refusing to strike the honest opinion defense.Harry has claimed the article was “fundamentally inaccurate” and the newspaper defamed him when it suggested he lied in his initial public statements over efforts to challenge the government’s decision to strip him of his security detail after he and his family moved to the US in 2020.Harry, 39, the younger son of King Charles III, also has a lawsuit pending against the government’s decision to protect him on a case-by-case basis when he visits Britain.

the Telegraph reported.Harry now faces having to pay the newspaper’s $316,774.25 fees as well as his own attorneys – which could result in a bill totaling over $950,000.The California-based prince’s decision to drop the case was first reported by the Mail on Sunday’s sister publication, the Daily Mail.Harry had sued Associated Newspapers Limited over a February 2022 article that accused him of misleading the public about his willingness to pay for his personal security, the Telegraph explained.Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, famously lost their personal security when they stepped down from royal duties in 2020.In the article, the Mail on Sunday alleged that Harry only offered to pay for his own protection after he filed a legal complaint against the Home Office.In December, he lost his attempt to have the paper’s defense thrown out – meaning the litigation would proceed to the High Court, where Harry would have to prove that the story actually caused “serious harm,” the Telegraph said.The publisher, Mr.

defamation lawsuit by best-selling author and former Manhattan prosecutor Linda Fairstein over her portrayal in a 2019 crime drama about the Central Park Five case.US District Judge Kevin Castel on Tuesday said Fairstein plausibly alleged that Netflix, director Ava DuVernay and writer-producer Attica Locke acted with actual malice as to five scenes in “When They See Us.”The series dramatized the story of five black and Hispanic teenagers who spent five to 13 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted in the April 1989 rape of a white jogger in Central Park. Another man confessed in 2002.Castel in a 67-page decision found evidence that in depicting Fairstein as a villain emblematic of broader problems in criminal justice, the defendants “reverse-engineered plot points to attribute actions, responsibilities and viewpoints to Fairstein that were not hers and are unsupported in defendants’ substantial body of research materials.”The Manhattan judge said jurors should decide whether there was “clear and convincing evidence that defendants were recklessly indifferent to the truth.”Netflix, based in Los Gatos, Calif., and the defendants’ lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

groomer” on Twitter, prompting some users to threaten to harm or maim her or even kidnap her 13-year-old child.According to the complaint, filed in Douglas County District Court last week, the Nebraska Freedom Coalition slammed State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha, a progressive who was previously affiliated with the Democratic Party but has since become an independent, for opposing a proposed ban on gender-affirming care.Hunt was one of three lawmakers who mounted a several months-long filibuster that effectively slow-walked the legislative agenda for the state’s unicameral, technically nonpartisan, legislature for this year’s session.The filibuster ended after Republican-affiliated lawmakers found enough votes to overcome it by proposing a watered-down version of the ban, signed into law by Republican Gov.

reports Deadline. “Did I feel boycotted by Hollywood,” said Depp repeating the reporter’s question after being half an hour late to the panel and citing traffic issues for his delay.

highly publicized defamation trial.Allison wed the “Pirates of the Caribbean” actor in 1983 when she was 25 and he was 20, but the pair divorced just two years later citing “irreconcilable differences.”Appearing on the “Popcorned Planet” podcast, the 65-year-old was asked to give her take on the 36-year-old actress.Referring to Heard as “she who shall not be named” throughout her interview, Allison recalled really liking the “Aquaman” actress at the start of her romance with Depp.“I had met her before, I’d been to parties at his house,” Allison recalled. “She seemed really nice and she was gorgeous, and what’s not to love?“But as the time went by and I would hear things about her – she who shall not be named – he didn’t seem too happy all the time.

according to the official complaint. “The film is a thinly veiled account of the events surrounding the death by drowning of Ferreras’ wife, Audrey Anne Marie Mestre Ferreras,” reads the document.

now archived on his account under a Highlight titled “PSA” — the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star wrote, “I’ve been made aware that there are fake accounts pretending to be me or people working with me.“I do not have any private or side accounts on any platforms. These are the only pages run by me and my team where we share updates and communicate,” he added, listing his official accounts across several platforms. “I ask that you remain cautious as it seems these fake accounts can be relentless.

Follow the New York Post’s up-to-the-minute coverage as Johnny Depp’s defamation trial against ex-wife Amber Heard resumes after an extended break.

Defence Minister Peter Dutton won his defamation case against an unemployed gay refugee activist who had referred to him as a “rape apologist” on social mediaA Federal Court indicated that it would order gay refugee activist Shane Bazzi to pay $35,000 as damages to Dutton. The minister had sued Bazzi over a tweet published on February 25, that said:  “Peter Dutton is a rape apologist.”Bazzi, a prominent voice during the 2017 national Marriage equality vote, who is presently unemployed had raised over $157,000 through crowdfunding to fight the defamation case by Dutton. Following the verdict, Bazzi posted on : “We are very disappointed with the outcome. We will be taking time to consider our options.

Carole Baskin, who became a pop culture sensation due to Netflix’s docuseries Tiger King, is being sued for defamation by a former assistant.

the new host of MSNBC’s 7 p.m. weeknight hour, should again face a defamation lawsuit over a woman’s claim that, in Reid’s social media posts, she falsely accused her of making racist remarks at a 2018 Simi Valley, CA city council meeting.The plaintiff in the case, Roslyn La Liberte, contends that in one of Reid’s social media posts on Instagram, she defamed her by attributing racist remarks to her.

Kesha has filed an appeal after losing a defamation battle with her former music producer, Dr. Luke.

Justin Bieber is suing two social media users for accusing him of sexual assault.

TMZ, Bieber claims he has “indisputable documentary evidence” to prove their sexual assault claims are nothing but “outrageous, fabricated lies”.Danielle claimed Bieber sexually assaulted her in a Four Seasons Hotel room in Austin, Texas in March 2014, but he insists he can prove there’s no truth to the allegation.According to the paperwork, Bieber admits he was in the city for an appearance at the SXSW festival, but he did not stay at the Four Seasons Hotel and was there with his then-girlfriend Selena Gomez.Bieber is convinced Danielle made up her story based on public reports he ate at the Four Seasons Restaurant on March 10, 2014.Kadi claims Bieber sexually assaulted her at the Langham Hotel in New York City in early May 2015.Calling