4 ms·

A link to the JudyRecord of the judgement [1] yields a better quote: Because a reasonable factfinder could not conclude that "Butt-Head Astronomer" implied tha

A link to the JudyRecord of the judgement [1] yields a better quote: Because a reasonable factfinder could not conclude that "Butt-Head Astronomer" implied that Plaintiff was a less than able astronomer or that Plaintiff was legally wrong in asking Defendant to cease using Plaintiff's name, the only remaining assertion is the bare statement that Plaintiff is a "Butt-Head Astronomer." Clearly this phrase cannot rest on a core of objective evidence. Plaintiff does not suggest any other assertions of objective fact that could be reasonably implied from the phrase. Based on an analysis of the factors identified in Unelko, the Court has no reason to conclude that the statement made by Defendant implies an assertion of objective fact. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 21, 110 S. Ct. at 2707 . Therefore, the statement is protected under the First Amendment and cannot form the basis of a claim for libel. [1] https://www.judyrecords.com/record/zbvxoh5rdf1a https://www.judyrecords.com/record/zbvxoh5rdf1a

CamperBob2 5y ago
Therefore, the statement is protected under the First Amendment and cannot form the basis of a claim for libel. That's kind of odd. What does the First Amendment have to do with libel law? Doesn't 1A constrain only the government from prohibiting or forcing speech?
- unixfg 5y ago
  Who enforces libel law?
- kelnos 5y ago
  Libel laws, themselves, are a restriction on free speech, no? If I sue someone for libel and win, it's not me that's restricting the other party's freedom of speech, it's the government. I merely asked them to do it.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    It is not a restriction on free speech, libel exists within a particular context where there is demonstrable material damage to the person that was the target of said statements, which have to be demonstrably false and demonstrably published in bad faith. Libel laws, then, deal with the reparation of said inflicted damage. A crude analogy, if you stab somebody, the crime is not the knife, it is the stabbing. No need to put a restriction on knives (although there's some but you get the idea).
    - cmeacham98 5y ago
      This is just straight up not true, as anyone who passed a K12 government/civics class in the US can tell you. Libel laws _are_ a restriction on your 1st Amendment rights - that was never really in question. Originally, libel was considered completely devoid of 1A protections. Most defamation laws even allowed you to sue for *truthful* statements. However, in the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan), the USSC reversed this and ruled that the 1st Amendment partially applied to libel and laws must be scoped as such.
      - moralestapia 5y ago
        >as anyone who passed a K12 government/civics class in the US can tell you That's unnecessary, but probably you need to retake such class. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, if anything, established new criteria intended to further protect the rights given by the 1st Ammendment; among those the so called malice standard that I referenced in my earlier comment.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > Doesn't 1A constrain only the government from prohibiting or forcing speech? They can't punish it either.
awb 5y ago
> However, Apple lost its motions for a more definite statement of Sagan's Lanham Act claim. Apple had argued that Sagan's complaint had admitted that his name was only used internally at Apple, and could not, therefore, have been "in commerce" as required by the Act. Judge Baird noted that Sagan's complaint only asserted that Apple's attorneys had stated that the name was only used internally. Finally, Judge Baird denied Apple's motion to strike Sagan's invasion of privacy count as redundant in light of the right of publicity claim. She noted that the former asserted an additional request for punitive damages, and that the other redundant elements did not prejudice the defendant in any way. INAL so hard for me to parse this, but does this mean that some elements of the lawsuit were allowed to progress?
- setr 5y ago
  My reading is that they tried to argue that the first complaint/lawsuit was invalid as well — the one that forced the name change itself — and that was upheld
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Lawyers will often argue the equivalent of “we didn’t do it and even if we did it was fine” - if you win the first part, you’ve won, and if you lose the first part you still have the second.

CamperBob2 5y ago

Therefore, the statement is protected under the First Amendment and cannot form the basis of a claim for libel. That's kind of odd. What does the First Amendment have to do with libel law? Doesn't 1A constrain only the government from prohibiting or forcing speech?

unixfg 5y ago
Who enforces libel law?
kelnos 5y ago
Libel laws, themselves, are a restriction on free speech, no? If I sue someone for libel and win, it's not me that's restricting the other party's freedom of speech, it's the government. I merely asked them to do it.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  It is not a restriction on free speech, libel exists within a particular context where there is demonstrable material damage to the person that was the target of said statements, which have to be demonstrably false and demonstrably published in bad faith. Libel laws, then, deal with the reparation of said inflicted damage. A crude analogy, if you stab somebody, the crime is not the knife, it is the stabbing. No need to put a restriction on knives (although there's some but you get the idea).
  - cmeacham98 5y ago
    This is just straight up not true, as anyone who passed a K12 government/civics class in the US can tell you. Libel laws _are_ a restriction on your 1st Amendment rights - that was never really in question. Originally, libel was considered completely devoid of 1A protections. Most defamation laws even allowed you to sue for *truthful* statements. However, in the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan), the USSC reversed this and ruled that the 1st Amendment partially applied to libel and laws must be scoped as such.
    - moralestapia 5y ago
      >as anyone who passed a K12 government/civics class in the US can tell you That's unnecessary, but probably you need to retake such class. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, if anything, established new criteria intended to further protect the rights given by the 1st Ammendment; among those the so called malice standard that I referenced in my earlier comment.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> Doesn't 1A constrain only the government from prohibiting or forcing speech? They can't punish it either.

awb 5y ago

> However, Apple lost its motions for a more definite statement of Sagan's Lanham Act claim. Apple had argued that Sagan's complaint had admitted that his name was only used internally at Apple, and could not, therefore, have been "in commerce" as required by the Act. Judge Baird noted that Sagan's complaint only asserted that Apple's attorneys had stated that the name was only used internally. Finally, Judge Baird denied Apple's motion to strike Sagan's invasion of privacy count as redundant in light of the right of publicity claim. She noted that the former asserted an additional request for punitive damages, and that the other redundant elements did not prejudice the defendant in any way. INAL so hard for me to parse this, but does this mean that some elements of the lawsuit were allowed to progress?

setr 5y ago
My reading is that they tried to argue that the first complaint/lawsuit was invalid as well — the one that forced the name change itself — and that was upheld
- bombcar 5y ago
  Lawyers will often argue the equivalent of “we didn’t do it and even if we did it was fine” - if you win the first part, you’ve won, and if you lose the first part you still have the second.