Misplaced Pages

#533466

103-466: FilmOn.TV Networks was founded by owner Alki David in 2006. In 2010 FilmOn launched a streaming internet TV service for mobile devices. Filmon.com claimed it was going to launch an additional over-the-air distribution model using FilmOn AIR, a portable tuner that was supposed to send over-the-air HD channels to mobile devices and computers. At the time, FilmOn's annual subscription was approximately $ 149.95. In November 2010, major broadcasting studios won

206-443: A per se action: If the plaintiff proves that such a statement was made and was false, to recover damages the plaintiff need only prove that someone had made the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. However, to recover full compensation a plaintiff should be prepared to prove actual damages. As with any defamation case, truth remains an absolute defence to defamation per se . This means that even if

309-429: A UK-based independent production and international sales company. Also that year, David started FilmOn , an online streaming site. He has appeared in films, including a 2008 motion picture, The Bank Job , in which David played a tunneling expert hired by Jason Statham to help with a bank heist. In 2015, David began working with rapper Chief Keef , who signed a record contract with David and FilmOn. The rapper

412-419: A case the truth of the statements was no justification for the public and insulting manner in which they had been made, but, even in public matters, the accused had the opportunity to justify his actions by openly stating what he considered necessary for public safety to be denounced by the libel and proving his assertions to be true. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case

515-611: A channel devoted to Alfred Hitchcock , in 2013. In 2014, FilmOn launched Bloodzillathon, a channel devoted to kaiju movies, and it also began streaming Voice of America in 2014. In a case that was projected to "impact free speech cases in California," in May 2019, the Supreme Court of California gave FilmOn the go-ahead to sue DoubleVerify for trade libel . The ruling reversed a lower court's decision supporting DoubleVerify's invocation of

618-466: A child with a Christian man, and that this act was common. Following Osborne's anti-Semitic publication, several Jews were attacked. Initially, the judge seemed to believe the court could do nothing since no individual was singled out by Osborne's writings. However, the court concluded that "since the publication implied the act was one Jews frequently did, the whole community of Jews was defamed." Though various reports of this case give differing accounts of

721-761: A commoner in England was known as libel or slander, the defamation of a member of the English aristocracy was called scandalum magnatum, literally "the scandal of magnates". Following the Second World War and with the rise of contemporary international human rights law , the right to a legal remedy for defamation was included in Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states that: This implies

824-406: A criminal offence and provide for penalties as such. Article 19 , a British free expression advocacy group, has published global maps charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe, as well as showing countries that have special protections for political leaders or functionaries of the state. There can be regional statutes that may differ from the national norm. For example, in

927-408: A defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant: Additionally, American courts apply special rules in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defence. While plaintiff alleging defamation in an American court must usually prove that the statement caused harm, and was made without adequate research into

1030-459: A famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment, see generally trademark dilution , " intentional interference with contract ", and "negligent misrepresentation". In America, for example, the unique tort of false light protects plaintiffs against statements which are not technically false but are misleading. Libel and slander both require publication. Although laws vary by state; in America,

1133-458: A humiliating or degrading manner), et cetera. "Fama" is a generic term referring to reputation and actio iniuriarum pertaining to it encompasses defamation more broadly Beyond simply covering actions that fall within the broader concept of defamation, "actio iniuriarum" relating to infringements of a person's corpus provides civil remedies for assaults, acts of a sexual or indecent nature, and 'wrongful arrest and detention'. In Scots law , which

SECTION 10

#1732872640534

1236-609: A legal expert quoted in the Los Angeles Times, the award was "among the highest ever for an employment case." The former production assistant was then awarded $ 58 million from David in punitive damages. FilmOn and Alki David have been involved in several legal issues over programming including the carriage of major U.S. broadcast channels, such as CBS (and its sister network, The CW ), NBC , ABC and FOX (and its sister network, MyNetworkTV ), among others. This resulted in requiring FilmOn to drop these channels in 2011. In 2012,

1339-434: A libel case in an American court, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth (i.e. actual malice ). The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. An early example of libel

1442-498: A long history stretching back to classical antiquity. While defamation has been recognized as an actionable wrong in various forms across historical legal systems and in various moral and religious philosophies, defamation law in contemporary legal systems can primarily be traced back to Roman and early English law. Roman law was aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation

1545-564: A normal cable system. It was the first ruling to view a streaming service as a cable provider. The studios appealed. Specifically, in July 2015, George H. Wu , Judge for the Central District of California ruled that FilmOn could qualify for a compulsory license for television content. However, as of late April 2016, the legal issue remained unsettled. Although it had granted judgment in FilmOn's favor,

1648-461: A person that is included in a personal database and that one knows to be false, is punished with six months to three years in prison. When there is harm to somebody, penalties are aggravated by an extra half (Article 117 bis, §§ 2nd and 3rd). Defamation law in Australia developed primarily out of the English law of defamation and its cases, though now there are differences introduced by statute and by

1751-558: A provably false factual connotation. Subsequent state and federal cases have addressed defamation law and the Internet. American defamation law is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries . A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander under American law is difficult, as the definition differs between different states and

1854-621: A right to legal protection against defamation; however, this right co-exists with the right to freedom of opinion and expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Article 19 of the ICCPR expressly provides that the right to freedom of opinion and expression may be limited so far as it is necessary "for respect of the rights or reputations of others". Consequently, international human rights law provides that while individuals should have

1957-456: A ruling that providing Internet technology for receiving over-the-air broadcast signals at no charge does not violate broadcasters' copyrights. In 2019 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed complaints claiming David "engaged in a fraudulent scheme to induce the investing public to buy securities of Hologram and its subsidiary in unlawfully unregistered offerings, through materially false and misleading representations" in violation of

2060-430: A statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of " invasion of privacy " in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". The tort of harassment created by Singapore's Protection from Harassment Act 2014 is an example of a tort of this type being created by statute. There

2163-480: A swimsuit designer and former model. In 2024, Stano stated that David was her "ex", and that they had children together during their marriage. In a 2021 interview with The Daily Beast about an $ 80 million judgement against him for sexual battery, David claimed to be "completely exhausted" of cash resources, and added prior claims he was a billionaire were "complete fiction" he had manufactured. Following judgements levied against him in multiple suits, David alleged

SECTION 20

#1732872640534

2266-517: A temporary restraining order against David's FilmOn in November 2010 to prevent unlicensed use of their broadcast signals. David sued CBS, dropped the suit, and sued CBS Interactive in November 2011, alleging copyright infringement due to the CNET website having editorially covered infringing uses of peer-to-peer file-sharing software. In June 2013, David filed a countersuit against the four networks seeking

2369-472: A temporary restraining order against FilmOn.com plc in New York, arguing it was violating copyright law by streaming local broadcasts. In May 2012, FilmOn launched its Facebook app. At the time, the app had 120 channels, with 2,000 on demand titles. For a beta testing stage, all channels were free of charge, as was recording functionality. With Alki David stating the FilmOn technology had been majorly changed by

2472-499: Is 'little historical basis in Scots law for the kind of structural difficulties that have restricted English law' in the development of mechanisms to protect so-called 'rights of personality'. The actio iniuriarum heritage of Scots law gives the courts scope to recognise, and afford reparation in, cases in which no patrimonial (or 'quasi-patrimonial') 'loss' has occurred, but a recognised dignitary interest has nonetheless been invaded through

2575-465: Is 40,000 ALL to three million ALL (c. $ 25 100 ). In addition, defamation of authorities, public officials or foreign representatives (Articles 227, 239 to 241) are separate crimes with maximum penalties varying from one to three years of imprisonment. In Argentina , the crimes of calumny and injury are foreseen in the chapter "Crimes Against Honor" (Articles 109 to 117-bis) of the Penal Code. Calumny

2678-472: Is a subscription-based internet-based television service allowing remote computer viewing of local television. It also allows users to create their own live or video-on-demand channels. At one point, the service licensed 600 channels along with 90,000 video-on-demand titles. The channel lineup varies depending on country. Its library has included the CineBx and Allied Film libraries. FilmOn launched Shockmasters,

2781-417: Is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of " misrepresentation ", involving the making of a statement that is untrue even though not defamatory. Thus a surveyor who states a house is free from risk of flooding has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house relying on this statement. Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U.S. law are claims that

2884-498: Is clear and accessible to everyone", 2) "proven to be necessary and legitimate to protect the rights or reputations of others", and 3) "proportionate and the least restrictive to achieve the purported aim". This test is analogous to the Oakes Test applied domestically by the Supreme Court of Canada in assessing whether limitations on constitutional rights are "demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society" under Section 1 of

2987-431: Is closely related to Roman Dutch law, the remedy for defamation is similarly the actio iniuriarium and the most common defence is "veritas" (i.e. proving the truth of otherwise defamatory statement). Defamation falls within the realm of non-patrimonial (i.e. dignitary) interests. The Scots law pertaining to the protection of non-patrimonial interests is said to be 'a thing of shreds and patches'. This notwithstanding, there

3090-544: Is defined as "the false imputation to a determined person of a concrete crime that leads to a lawsuit" (Article 109). However, expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive do not constitute calumny. Penalty is a fine from 3,000 to 30,000 pesos . He who intentionally dishonor or discredit a determined person is punished with a penalty from 1,500 to 20,000 pesos (Article 110). He who publishes or reproduces, by any means, calumnies and injuries made by others, will be punished as responsible himself for

3193-558: Is further affected by federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together, merging the concepts into a single defamation law. New Zealand received English law with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840. The current Act is the Defamation Act 1992 which came into force on 1 February 1993 and repealed the Defamation Act 1954 . New Zealand law allows for

FilmOn - Misplaced Pages Continue

3296-592: Is likely that Indian courts would treat this principle as persuasive precedent. Recently, incidents of defamation in relation to public figures have attracted public attention. The origins of U.S. defamation law pre-date the American Revolution . Though the First Amendment of the American Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, it was primarily envisioned to prevent censorship by

3399-755: Is more controversial as it involves the state expressly seeking to restrict freedom of expression . Human rights organisations, and other organisations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe , have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalise defamation. The freedom of expression advocacy group Article 19 opposes criminal defamation, arguing that civil defamation laws providing defences for statements on matters of public interest are better compliant with international human rights law. The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of

3502-545: Is no need to prove that specific damage or loss has occurred. However, Section 6 of the Act allows for a defamation action brought by a corporate body to proceed only when the body corporate alleges and proves that the publication of the defamation has caused or is likely to cause pecuniary loss to that body corporate. As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (except in Quebec where

3605-401: Is not defamation. While defamation torts are broadly similar across common law jurisdictions; differences have arisen as a result of diverging case law, statutes and other legislative action, and constitutional concerns specific to individual jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of injury , intentional infliction of emotional distress , involving the making of

3708-409: Is often purchased by publishers and journalists to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits. Roughly 3/4 of all money spent on claims by liability insurers goes to lawyers and only 1/4 goes to settlements or judgments, according to one estimate from Michelle Worrall Tilton of Media Risk Consultants. Some advise buying worldwide coverage that offers defense against cases regardless of where in

3811-455: Is that of truth. Proving the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement is always a valid defence. Where a statement is partially true, certain jurisdictions in the Commonwealth have provided by statute that the defence "shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant's reputation having regard to

3914-499: Is the case of John Peter Zenger in 1735. Zenger was hired to publish the New York Weekly Journal . When he printed another man's article criticising William Cosby , the royal governor of Colonial New York , Zenger was accused of seditious libel . The verdict was returned as not guilty on the charge of seditious libel, because it was proven that all the statements Zenger had published about Cosby had been true, so there

4017-492: Is typically regarded as a tort for which the offended party can take civil action . The range of remedies available to successful plaintiffs in defamation cases varies between jurisdictions and range from damages to court orders requiring the defendant to retract the offending statement or to publish a correction or an apology. Modern defamation in common law jurisdictions are historically derived from English defamation law . English law allows actions for libel to be brought in

4120-521: The California Code of Civil Procedure and Ontario's Protection of Public Participation Act do so by enabling defendants to make a special motion to strike or dismiss during which discovery is suspended and which, if successful, would terminate the lawsuit and allow the party to recover its legal costs from the plaintiff. There are a variety of defences to defamation claims in common law jurisdictions. The two most fundamental defences arise from

4223-634: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , the " necessary in a democratic society " test applied by the European Court of Human Rights in assessing limitations on rights under the ECHR, Section 36 of the post- Apartheid Constitution of South Africa , and Section 24 of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya. Nevertheless, the worldwide use of criminal and civil defamation , to censor, intimidate or silence critics, has been increasing in recent years. In 2011,

FilmOn - Misplaced Pages Continue

4326-444: The Commonwealth of Independent States , America, and Canada. Questions of group libel have been appearing in common law for hundreds of years. One of the earliest known cases of a defendant being tried for defamation of a group was the case of R v Orme and Nutt (1700). In this case, the jury found that the defendant was guilty of libeling several subjects, though they did not specifically identify who these subjects were. A report of

4429-854: The Copyright Office . In July 2016, FilmOn in California won a case agreeing with its interpretation, which "represented a threat to broadcasters", according to the Hollywood Reporter. In March 2017, that ruling in favor of FilmOn was reversed, and afterwards, FilmOn continued to appeal. CBS, Fox and NBC settled with FilmOn in May 2017. The settlement resulted in FilmOn withdrawing its appeals to other circuits. Terms were confidential. On May 1, 2017, all channels were set to "Paid" - both SD and HD quality - which restricts viewing time to 2 minutes. Previously, SD quality channels were mostly free. Alki David remained head of FilmOn Networks in December 2019. FilmOn

4532-457: The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan . Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail themselves of a defence of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defence of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of

4635-576: The United Nations Human Rights Committee published their General comment No. 34 (CCPR/C/GC/34) – regarding Article 19 of the ICCPR. Paragraph 47 states: Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with paragraph 3 [of Article 19 of the ICCPR], and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defences as

4738-401: The defence of truth and they should not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification. At least with regard to comments about public figures , consideration should be given to avoiding penalizing or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice. In any event, a public interest in

4841-551: The 2014 contempt of court ruling by the Second Circuit, FilmOn was also barred from transmitting broadcast television in the Central District of California and thus remained barred nationwide. As of July 2015, the company went by FilmOn X LLC in the United States in the then ongoing case Fox Television Stations, Inc v. FilmOn X, LLC . That month, a US judge ruled that internet streaming services like FilmOn should be treated as

4944-462: The California court system was part of a corrupt conspiracy and publicly refused to comply with court ordered payments. In 2022, after failing to appear at multiple court-ordered appearances, David's lawyer reported there were discussions underway to place him into conservatorship as his client was suffering from "downward spiralling mental health " issues. David's businesses include: CBS , ABC , NBC , Fox Broadcasting and their studios won

5047-510: The Central District of California court maintained its preliminary injunction barring the company's streaming services pending the outcome of the appeal. CBS, Fox and NBC settled with FilmOn in May 2017. Alki David Alkiviades "Alki" David (born May 1968; pronounced / ˈ æ l k i / AL -kee ) is a Cypriot-British businessman. In 2008 he was the majority shareholder of Leventis-David Group, which owns Coca-Cola Hellenic bottling plants in 28 countries. His companies include

5150-476: The Dutch Caribbean) gives rise to a claim by way of " actio iniuriarum ". For liability under the actio iniuriarum , the general elements of delict must be present, but specific rules have been developed for each element. Causation, for example, is seldom in issue, and is assumed to be present. The elements of liability under the actio iniuriarum are as follows: Under the actio iniuriarum , harm consists in

5253-592: The English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel (written, printed, posted online, published in mass media) and slander (oral speech). It is treated as a civil wrong ( tort , delict ), as a criminal offence , or both. Defamation and related laws can encompass a variety of acts (from general defamation and insult – as applicable to every citizen –‍ to specialized provisions covering specific entities and social structures): Defamation law has

SECTION 50

#1732872640534

5356-525: The High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals (under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation ) in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them. In contemporary common law jurisdictions, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than

5459-600: The Internet-based television provider FilmOn , streaming-video site BattleCam.com, among other Internet companies. He is said to be and has claimed to be a billionaire . In recent years, multiple cases of sexual misconduct , including workplace sexual harassment and rape, have been brought against Alki David. Alkiviades David was born in May 1968, in Lagos , Nigeria, to a trading and shipping family of Greek-speaking-Cypriot origin. His father, Andrew A. David (1934–2000),

5562-749: The Securities Act of 1933. David was ordered to pay $ 100,000 in fines and was enjoined from being an officer in publicly held companies for a period of five years. In 2019, David was arrested at the airport in St Kitts and Nevis for possession of over EC$ 1.3 million worth of cannabis after a search of his private jet. In April 2019 a jury decided David should pay $ 11 million in damages to a woman who accused him of sexual assault, including $ 8 million in punitive damages and $ 3 million in compensatory damages. The woman accused David of firing her after she turned down his sexual advances and alleged he groped her in

5665-575: The US that would allow users to watch local television broadcasts not in their region. FilmOn's business model at the time involved making money by selling advertising, as well as providing access to high-definition video, among other services, according to the Financial Times . However, it was restricted by ongoing court battles from offering major network television in various locations in the United States. It had 350 live television channels, and also had original programming. In July 2015, FilmOn served as

5768-470: The United States, criminal defamation is generally limited to the living. However, there are 7 states ( Idaho , Kansas , Louisiana , Nevada , North Dakota , Oklahoma , Utah ) that have criminal statutes regarding defamation of the dead. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has also published a detailed database on criminal and civil defamation provisions in 55 countries, including all European countries, all member countries of

5871-508: The anti- SLAPP statute. In February 2017, a former employee of FilmOn sued both FilmOn and Alki David, saying David had assaulted her in the workplace, and then fired her for refusing advances. She was awarded $ 11 million in April 2019 by a jury. In November 2019, a Los Angeles jury awarded $ 8.25 million in damages to a former FilmOn employee, with FilmOn owner Alki David held liable for battery, sexual battery, and sexual harassment. According to

5974-435: The calumnies and injuries whenever its content is not correctly attributed to the corresponding source. Exceptions are expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive (see Article 113). When calumny or injury are committed through the press, a possible extra penalty is the publication of the judicial decision at the expenses of the guilty (Article 114). He who passes to someone else information about

6077-412: The case told that the jury believed that "where a writing ... inveighs against mankind in general, or against a particular order of men, as for instance, men of the gown, this is no libel, but it must descend to particulars and individuals to make it libel." This jury believed that only individuals who believed they were specifically defamed had a claim to a libel case. Since the jury was unable to identify

6180-633: The channels were all returned after appeals were lodged in Federal Court and FilmOn launched its FilmOn Air X antenna farm. On September 5, 2013, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a nationwide injunction blocking FilmOn from offering its antenna / DVR service. However, the ruling did not apply in the Second Circuit (which includes

6283-599: The country by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice – that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later the Supreme Court held that statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true are protected from libel claims, as are statements of opinion relating to matters of public concern that do not contain

SECTION 60

#1732872640534

6386-539: The crime, this report clearly shows a ruling based on group libel. Since laws restricting libel were accepted at this time because of its tendency to lead to a breach of peace, group libel laws were justified because they showed potential for an equal or perhaps greater risk of violence. For this reason, group libel cases are criminal even though most libel cases are civil torts. In a variety of Common Law jurisdictions, criminal laws prohibiting protests at funerals, sedition , false statements in connection with elections, and

6489-471: The criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It is impermissible for a State party to indict a person for criminal defamation but then not to proceed to trial expeditiously – such a practice has a chilling effect that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person concerned and others. While each legal tradition approaches defamation differently, it

6592-527: The defences of absolute and qualified privilege, fair comment, and justification. While statutory law in the United Kingdom provides that, if the defendant is only successful in proving the truth of some of the several charges against him, the defence of justification might still be available if the charges not proved do not materially injure the reputation, there is no corresponding provision in India, though it

6695-421: The doctrine in common law jurisdictions that only a false statement of fact (as opposed to opinion) can be defamatory. This doctrine gives rise to two separate but related defences: opinion and truth. Statements of opinion cannot be regarded as defamatory as they are inherently non-falsifiable. Where a statement has been shown to be one of fact rather than opinion, the most common defence in common law jurisdictions

6798-532: The exact people who were being defamed, there was no cause to identify the statements were a libel. Another early English group libel which has been frequently cited is King v. Osborne (1732). In this case, the defendant was on trial "for printing a libel reflecting upon the Portuguese Jews". The printing in question claimed that Jews who had arrived in London from Portugal burned a Jewish woman to death when she had

6901-430: The first few decades of the twenty first century, the phenomenon of strategic lawsuits against public participation has gained prominence in many common law jurisdictions outside Singapore as activists, journalists, and critics of corporations, political leaders, and public figures are increasingly targeted with vexatious defamation litigation. As a result, tort reform measures have been enacted in various jurisdictions;

7004-402: The following remedies in an action for defamation: compensatory damages; an injunction to stop further publication; a correction or a retraction; and in certain cases, punitive damages. Section 28 of the Act allows for punitive damages only when a there is a flagrant disregard of the rights of the person defamed. As the law assumes that an individual suffers loss if a statement is defamatory, there

7107-517: The freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was Lingens v. Austria (1986). According to the Criminal Code of Albania , defamation is a crime. Slandering in the knowledge of falsity is subject to fines of from 40 000 ALL (c. $ 350) to one million ALL (c. $ 8350 ). If the slandering occurs in public or damages multiple people, the fine

7210-498: The infringement of a personality right, either "corpus", "dignitas", or "fama". Dignitas is a generic term meaning 'worthiness, dignity, self-respect', and comprises related concerns like mental tranquillity and privacy. Because it is such a wide concept, its infringement must be serious. Not every insult is humiliating; one must prove contumelia . This includes insult ( iniuria in the narrow sense), adultery, loss of consortium, alienation of affection, breach of promise (but only in

7313-474: The like, then it is slander. In contrast, libel encompasses defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than spoken words or gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel. The highest award in an American defamation case, at US$ 222.7 million was rendered in 1997 against Dow Jones in favour of MMAR Group Inc; however,

7416-514: The offence was constituted by the unnecessary act of shouting. According to Ulpian , not all shouting was actionable. Drawing on the argument of Labeo , he asserted that the offence consisted in shouting contrary to the morals of the city (" adversus bonos mores huius civitatis ") something apt to bring in disrepute or contempt (" quae... ad infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret ") the person exposed thereto. Any act apt to bring another person into disrepute gave rise to an actio injurarum . In such

7519-403: The offense lay in the content of the imputation, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation. In Anglo-Saxon England , whose legal tradition is the predecessor of contemporary common law jurisdictions, slander was punished by cutting out the tongue. Historically, while defamation of

7622-433: The person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander , and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel . The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, such as spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures or

7725-448: The private law is derived from French civil law). In common law provinces and territories, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995),

7828-570: The production company behind a new single and music video by artist Chief Keef . CBS , Fox and NBC sued FilmOn in the United States for copyright violations in 2013. While Aereo went bankrupt under a similar lawsuit, FilmOn had argued that "since the high court justices likened streaming operations to a cable system, it was entitled to a compulsory license" under Section 111 of the Copyright Act , and that it had tendered appropriate fees to

7931-730: The publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi , from which is derived the modern use of the word libel ; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils , the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matters contained in them were true or false. The Praetorian Edict, codified circa AD 130, declared that an action could be brought up for shouting at someone contrary to good morals: " qui, adversus bonos mores convicium cui fecisse cuiusve opera factum esse dicitur, quo adversus bonos mores convicium fieret, in eum iudicium dabo. " In this case,

8034-496: The reputation or rights of others. Additionally, restrictions of freedom of expression and other rights guaranteed by international human rights laws (including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) and by the constitutions of a variety of countries are subject to some variation of the three-part test recognised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee which requires that limitations be: 1) "provided by law that

8137-458: The right to a legal remedy for defamation, this right must be balanced with the equally protected right to freedom of opinion and expression. In general, ensuring that domestic defamation law adequately balances individuals' right to protect their reputation with freedom of expression and of the press entails: In most of Europe, article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect

8240-483: The state rather than defamation suits; thus, for most of American history, the Supreme Court did not interpret the First Amendment as applying to libel cases involving media defendants. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan dramatically altered the nature of libel law in

8343-533: The statement is true or is a statement of fact, it does not actually harm someone's reputation. It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures . Public interest is generally not "what the public is interested in", but rather "what is in the interest of the public". Other defences recognised in one or more common law jurisdictions include: Media liability or defamation insurance

8446-451: The statement was defamatory. In an action for defamation per se , the law recognises that certain false statements are so damaging that they create a presumption of injury to the plaintiff's reputation, allowing a defamation case to proceed to verdict with no actual proof of damages. Although laws vary by state, and not all jurisdictions recognise defamation per se , there are four general categories of false statement that typically support

8549-442: The statement would be considered defamatory per se if false, if the defendant establishes that it is in fact true, an action for defamation per se cannot survive. The conception of what type of allegation may support an action for defamation per se can evolve with public policy. For example, in May 2012 an appeals court in New York, citing changes in public policy with regard to homosexuality , ruled that describing someone as gay

8652-399: The statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent. Common law jurisdictions vary as to whether they permit corporate plaintiffs in defamation actions. Under contemporary Australian law, private corporations are denied the right to sue for defamation, with an exception for small businesses (corporations with less than 10 employees and no subsidiaries); this rule

8755-486: The states of New York , Vermont , and Connecticut ) due to an earlier case brought by Aereo one of FilmOn's competitors. The 2014-Second Circuit ruling found FilmOn in contempt of a 2012 injunction for continuing to deliver live TV streaming services after the U.S. Supreme Court deemed Aereo's service to be in violation of broadcast copyrights in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014). Following

8858-417: The subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defence. Care should be taken by States parties to avoid excessively punitive measures and penalties. Where relevant, States parties should place reasonable limits on the requirement for a defendant to reimburse the expenses of the successful party. States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of

8961-431: The summer of 2012, at that time, FilmOn was sued again by major networks. FilmOn paid the networks $ 1.6 million to resolve the 2012 lawsuit. In November 2012, FilmOn founder Alki David sued Fox Broadcasting in a Los Angeles Superior Court, arguing Fox had allegedly "libeled David’s company, FilmOn.com, by making false statements and misrepresenting past court orders to third parties including Apple, Google and Microsoft." At

9064-490: The time, the FilmOn board included individuals such as Charlie Sheen and Ice-T , among others. In October 2012, FilmOn had 85 employees and operated out of Beverly Hills. The company made around $ 24 million a year, with subscribers at that time paying between $ 11.95 and $ 17.90 a month for access. FIlmOn also was licensed to companies like Lenova, with plans for its app to be preloaded on Lenova computers. In February 2014, FilmOn introduced what it called "teleport technology" in

9167-454: The truth of the remaining charges". Similarly, the American doctrine of substantial truth provides that a statement is not defamatory if it has "slight inaccuracies of expression" but is otherwise true. Since a statement can only be defamatory if it harms another person's reputation, another defence tied to the ability of a statement to be defamatory is to demonstrate that, regardless of whether

9270-413: The truthfulness of the statement; where the plaintiff is a celebrity or public official, they must additionally prove that the statement was made with actual malice (i.e. the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth). A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win

9373-543: The use of profanity in public, are also often used in contexts similar to criminal libel actions. The boundaries of a court's power to hold individuals in "contempt of court" for what amounts to alleged defamatory statements about judges or the court process by attorneys or other people involved in court cases is also not well established in many common law countries. While defamation torts are less controversial as they ostensibly involve plaintiffs seeking to protect their right to dignity and their reputation, criminal defamation

9476-602: The verdict was dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees. In common law jurisdictions, civil lawsuits alleging defamation have frequently been used by both private businesses and governments to suppress and censor criticism. A notable example of such lawsuits being used to suppress political criticism of a government is the use of defamation claims by politicians in Singapore's ruling People's Action Party to harass and suppress opposition leaders such as J. B. Jeyaretnam . Over

9579-497: The workplace. Her complaint also accused him of showing lewd photos to employees and hiring a stripper in the workplace. As of 2023, he and his businesses have lost a total of $ 70 million after losing multiple cases of sexual misconduct made against him. In 2024, a woman was awarded $ 900 million in damages in her sexual assault case against David, in what was described as "one of the largest sexual assault verdicts in history". In an interview with The Daily Beast , David said that he

9682-452: The world they are filed, since a compainant can look for a more favorable jurisdiction to file their claim. Investigative journalism usually requires higher insurance premiums, with some plans not covering investigative work altogether. Many common law jurisdictions recognise that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se , such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that

9785-559: The wrongful conduct of the defender. For such reparation to be offered, however, the non-patrimonial interest must be deliberately affronted: negligent interference with a non-patrimonial interest will not be sufficient to generate liability. An actio iniuriarum requires that the conduct of the defender be 'contumelious' —that is, it must show such hubristic disregard of the pursuer's recognised personality interest that an intention to affront ( animus iniuriandi ) might be imputed. In addition to tort law, many jurisdictions treat defamation as

9888-916: Was born in Petra , Cyprus and went on to study business at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. In 1957, Andrew A. David joined the family business, the Leventis-David Group in Ghana, where he managed Coca-Cola Bottling Plant in Accra . David attended high school in Switzerland and studied film at the Royal College of Art. In 1998, he co-founded the London modelling agency Independent Models, whose models included Helena Christensen . In 2006, David partnered with veteran film producer Elliott Kastner to launch 111 Pictures Ltd.,

9991-620: Was false, the court ruled in its favour, saying that libel of a public official requires proof of actual malice , which was defined as a "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth". Many jurisdictions within the Commonwealth (e.g. Singapore, Ontario, and the United Kingdom ) have enacted legislation to: Libel law in England and Wales was overhauled even further by the Defamation Act 2013 . Defamation in Indian tort law largely resembles that of England and Wales . Indian courts have endorsed

10094-599: Was introduced by the state of New South Wales in 2003, and then adopted nationwide in 2006. By contrast, Canadian law grants private corporations substantially the same right to sue for defamation as individuals possess. Since 2013, English law charts a middle course, allowing private corporations to sue for defamation, but requiring them to prove that the defamation caused both serious harm and serious financial loss, which individual plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate. Defamation in jurisdictions applying Roman Dutch law (i.e. most of Southern Africa, Indonesia, Suriname, and

10197-485: Was let go in the same year due to disputes with Keef's management. According to The Sunday Times Rich List in 2020 his net worth, combined with the Leventis family, was estimated at £2.35 billion. However, various news reports in 2021 quoted David as noting billionaire claims were his own fabrications, and following multi-million-dollar judgements against him claimed he was "exhausted" of any funds. In 2024, David

10300-423: Was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although punitive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to

10403-452: Was not an issue of defamation. Another example of libel is the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The Supreme Court of the United States overruled a state court in Alabama that had found The New York Times guilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticised Alabama officials for mistreating student civil rights activists. Even though some of what The Times printed

10506-541: Was not going to pay the judgement, stating, “These people haven’t received a penny and never will. Over my dead fucking body.” Trade libel Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable , and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour . In

10609-543: Was ranked, together with the Leventis family, as the 60th richest person in the UK, and 2nd richest in Cypriot. This is despite David's own claims that his image as a wealthy billionaire was a fabrication. David has been married and divorced three times, and has two sons, Andrew and Alexander, with his first wife. He met second wife Emma McAllister in 2004, marrying her in 2007, and separating in 2009. In 2011 he married Jennifer Stano,

#533466