Remove Constitutional Law Remove Court Rules Remove Criminal Law Remove Tort
article thumbnail

Police Suggest Possible Charges for Those Who Filmed Rape on Train

JonathanTurley

We have seen criminal charges for videotaping crime scenes in other countries. We also discussed a torts case involving a delay in calling police, but that case involved people who were deemed partially responsible for a death. In torts, there is no duty to rescue rule. Cf: Restatement, Torts, § 322.

Tort 45
article thumbnail

Australia High Court Delivers Major Blow to Free Speech In Defamation Ruling

JonathanTurley

Free speech has always held a precarious position in Australia which does not have an equivalent to the First Amendment in guaranteeing free speech as a constitutional right. Despite this history, a new decision out of the High Court is still shocking in its implications for further attacks on free speech.

Tort 35
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

“Nevermind”: California Man Sues Band 30 Years After Being Featured as a Naked Baby on Iconic Cover

JonathanTurley

Civil and statutory claims can be curtailed by constitutional limitations. Supreme Court ruled against a provision of federal law that banned computer simulations and virtual pornography under the first amendment. This is such a case in my view. In 2002, the U.S. In Ashcroft v. In New York Times v.

article thumbnail

Democratic Member Accuses Colleagues Of Conducting “Surveillance” For Capitol Rioters

JonathanTurley

The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures.

Tort 57
article thumbnail

Trump’s Liability Or Opportunity? Two Capitol Police Officers Sue Trump Over Capitol Riot

JonathanTurley

The second “Count Five” is actually just a demand for punitive damages, rather than an actual separate tort. That claim runs directly counter to the controlling case law. In rejecting a suit against the church on constitutional grounds, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Speech is powerful. .”