Article Abstract:
The US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in Phelps v. Hamilton that a Kansas criminal defamation statute was constitutional if interpreted to require a showing of actual malice. Criminal defamation charges were brought against anti-homosexuality activist Fred Phelps by Topeka DA Joan Hamilton for statements made about a deceased gay man. Along with upholding the statute, the 10th Circuit found that the US district court should not have intervened in the state criminal action. The case was remanded to determine whether Phelps could prove harassment or bad faith by Hamilton.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has upheld the prohibition under the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1991 that prevents the US Information Agency (USIA) from creating content-based rules for educational films and ordered the agency to reconsider films it refused to certify under old regulations. The USIA has conceded that under the new law it can no longer label films as propaganda, or deny certification to films for presenting only one or limited viewpoints or using out-of-date facts.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
The US District Court of South Carolina has declared the South Carolina criminal libel law unconstitutional in Fitts v Kolb. The court stated that the libel law's term 'malicious intent' did not mean 'actual malice' and could be interpreted to mean that criminal damages could be levied against constitutionally protected speech. Therefore, because the law did not define 'malicious' as required constitutionally, the law is overbroad and unconstitutional.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: