[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Defamation of the goverment




>
>In the U. S. a public figure must show actual malice and reckless
disregard
>for truth to recover damages for defamation.
>But how does this
apply to the
>goverment itself, the president, and to a foreign
goverment?
>Seditious speech
>against the U. S. goverment is protected under
Brandenburg v. Ohio
>But what if
>for instance a Singaporian or German citizen
uses a remailer in California to
>insult the head of state, the goverment or
the rulingparty at home?
>Would
>willfully promotion of falsehood about a
foreign goverment or a foreign
>goverment institution be protected
speech?
>Could the Singaporian or German
>head of state or any goverment
institution within these countries recover
>damages for defamation committed
in the U.S. through a local SP?
>As far I
>understand it, there is two matters
of relevance.
>1) Sedątious advocacy under
>the Brandenburg standard.
>2)
Defamation precedence in which the Supreme Court
>ruled that a public figure
has to demonstrate actual malice and reckless
>disregard for truth.
>The
Supreme Court has never ruled that _all_ speech is
>protected unless it is
directed to incite or produce imminent lawless or
>likely to incite or produce
such action.
>Does this mean that defamation
>against the goverment or a
foreign goverment could be subject for civil action
>as long the statute
applied would meet the Sullivan standard?
>