Blog

From the BBC:

 A tweet is potentially libellous in England and Wales if it damages someone’s reputation “in the estimation of right thinking members of society”. It can do this by exposing them to “hatred, ridicule or contempt”. It is a civil offence so you won’t be jailed but you could end up with a large damages bill. The rules also apply to re-tweets.

The best defence is if you can prove the contents of the tweet are true.

You could also claim it was “fair comment” – your honestly held opinion on established facts. Another possible defence is to claim you were covered by privilege, if it was something said in Parliament or in court, or that it was an example of “innocent dissemination” – you did not know you had published the comment (it might have been an automatic system).

The only way to be completely safe is to avoid tweeting gossip unless you know for a fact that it is true.

I am so, so grateful for the First Amendment. Tweeters being held in contempt for posting pics of an accused murderers.

Yet, there may be progress afoot across the pond:

 Under the Defamation Bill, due to become law later this year, litigants in England and Wales will have to show that the words they are complaining about caused “substantial harm” rather than simply “harm” to their reputations.

In Clapper v. Amnesty International, Justice Alito has an interesting discussion about how a court’s decision to dismiss, or not dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction may tell a would-be terrorist if the government is monitoring him.

4 It was suggested at oral argument that the Government could help resolve the standing inquiry by disclosing to a court, perhaps through an in camera proceeding, (1) whether it is intercepting respondents’ communications and (2) what targeting or minimization procedures it is using. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 13–14, 44, 56. This suggestion is puzzling. As an initial matter, it is respondents’ burden to prove their standing by pointing to specific facts, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 561 (1992), not the Government’s burden to disprove standing by revealing details of its surveillance priorities. Moreover, this type of hypothetical disclosure proceeding would allow a terrorist (or his attorney) to determine whether he is currently under U. S. surveillance simply by filing a lawsuit challenging the Government’s surveillance program. Even if the terrorist’s attorney were to comply with a protective order prohibiting him from sharing the Government’s disclosures with his client, the court’s postdisclosure decision about whether to dismiss the suit for lack of standing would surely signal to the terrorist whether his name was on the list of surveillance targets.

If the case is dismissed, that means the suspect is not being monitored. If the case is not dismissed, then jurisdiction is present, and the suspect is being monitored. This is a form of what is known as greymail–attorneys using various proceedings in court to indirectly obtain classified information. Because the government does not want to release this information, they will instead change their enforcement practice.

And Alito seems awfully skeptical about the “even if” the attorney keeps the information secret.

Today we will continue covering future interests.

The lecture notes are here, and the live chat is here.

This is Henry VIII, who abolished the Statute of Uses.

He is most famous for breaking England away from the Roman Catholic Church so he could obtain a divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. She did not bear him a son, and he blamed her. Now we know that the Man provides the Y-chromosome, and is responsible for determining the gender of the offspring).

 Henry would go on to be married a total of 6 times, in his pursuit of a male heir.  Not all of his wives faired so well

Here is the rhyme we use to remember their fates: Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived.

This helpful graphic summarizes the fate of Henry’s wives. Henry’s most famous offspring was Elizabeth, who became Queen Elizabeth I (remember Shakespeare in Love?).

Today we will wrap up our coverage of easements, and focus on whether easements in gross are assignable, what the scopes of easements are, and whether easements can be terminated. The lecture notes are here, and the live chat is here.

Here is a map of the property in Miller v. Lutheran Conference & Camp Association.

View Larger Map

You can find out more about the property, which still operates as a club here, here, and here. Here are some old pictures of people wearing boating–but not bathing–at Lake Naomi. 

Here are some maps from Brown v. Voss, a case that took place on the Hood Canal (same place as Howard v. Kunto)–courtesy of the Dukeminier & Krier site..

Should an easement for a railroad cover an easement for a public trial?

Here is the map of the property at issue in the Presault case.

Here is the trail around Lake Champlaign. The Presualt’s home is on the right (Courtesy of Dukeminier & Krier):

A related question: What does this sign mean? What exactly is not allowed in the park?

Here is my advice, though it’s probably too late at this point 🙂