Saņem informāciju par jaunajiem Atlants.lv darbiem!
Akcija: ZiņotājsPRO uz 6 mēnešiem - bezmaksas!Abonēt bez maksas
Even if Mr. Norman is not a "political" public figure, he is a public figure that oversees many students and faculty and the accusation of being a terrorist (meaning that he would possibly take another human beings life or destroy any facility that contains human life) is clearly malice.
Mr. Norman can not file a criminal complaint Hui's use of fighting words. Even though the names that he was called were printed in the newspaper and was not said to him directly is Hui's opinion and he is entitled to his opinion, and can clearly express them. There is more of an intentional infliction of emotional distress. By reviewing the Chaplinsky test, the test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average person to fight, and by evaluating the words uttered the test would not apply. This is the job of the media and society can not expect to be pleased with every article that has been written or will be written in the future. In R.A.V. v. St. Paul this is no direct violation of the state statue.
Jacob Norman should be awarded $1 million dollars from the libel suit.
- Constitutional Law
- Differences between UK and Latvian Law System
- This Is a Paper Dealing with Search and Seizure Laws Relevant tot Constitutional Law
E-pasta adrese, uz kuru nosūtīt darba saiti:
Saite uz darbu: