Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

New York Times rule

Read a random definition: Premarital agreement

A quick definition of New York Times rule:

The New York Times rule is a simple ethical guideline that suggests one should not do anything that could be considered newsworthy, whether in public or private, that they would not want to see reported on the front page of a major newspaper. This rule is also known as the New York Times test or the New York Times v. Sullivan rule. Malice is the intent to commit a wrongful act, and actual malice refers to the deliberate intent to cause harm or injury, as evidenced by external circumstances. To prevail in a defamation case, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant. Other types of claims may also require proof of actual malice to recover damages.

A more thorough explanation:

The New York Times rule is a common sense ethical guideline that suggests one should not do anything that could be considered newsworthy, whether in public or private, that they would not want to see reported on the front page of a major newspaper. This rule is also known as the New York Times test or the New York Times v. Sullivan rule.

For example, if a politician is caught engaging in illegal activity, they would not want to see this reported on the front page of a major newspaper. Therefore, they should avoid engaging in any activity that could be considered illegal or unethical.

The New York Times rule is based on the concept of malice, which refers to the intent to commit a wrongful act without justification or excuse. Malice can also refer to reckless disregard for the law or a person's legal rights, or ill will and wickedness of heart.

Actual malice is a legal term that refers to the deliberate intent to commit an injury, as evidenced by external circumstances. In the case of defamation, actual malice refers to knowledge that a statement is false or reckless disregard for whether the statement is true.

To avoid violating the New York Times rule, individuals should consider the potential consequences of their actions and avoid engaging in any activity that could be considered newsworthy in a negative way.

New York Times malice | nexi

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
Right. Broken links smh
I've been UR since first/second week of Jan, no updates otherwise, is that a bad sign? At or above median LSAT and above 75th gpa.
The profile links are not working for me. anybody else?
13:18
i’m in the same boat mastermonkey but with lower stats. i hope i hear back by mid march
CheeseIsMyLoveLanguage
13:24
@mastermonkey45: Looking at some of the recent decisions in relation to when they went complete, I'd say it's a good sign. It seems many declines were sent within about 5-6 weeks of completion. Given those were applications that were SENT in January, I'd say that means you're still solidly in the running. :)
14:30
Sent an app to OSU in early december and have STILL not heard back
Give it 4 more weeks at least. Everyone in this chat needs to wait longer.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.