A federal court in New York has set the date for a second defamation trial against former president Donald Trump brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll who received $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages last month in a jury verdict.

A federal court in New York has set the date for a second defamation trial against former president Donald Trump brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll who received $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages last month in a jury verdict. The trial will begin on 15 January 2024 and Carroll is seeking at least $10 million in damages this time. The timing is critical as 2024 is when the US goes into presidential polls and Trump's election campaign might be in full swing by then. Trump's lawyers unsuccessfully argued that Carroll shouldn't have been allowed to amend the defamation lawsuit. “We maintain that she should not be permitted to retroactively change her legal theory, at the eleventh hour, to avoid the consequences of an adverse finding against her," said Alina Habba, Trump's attorney earlier this week. WATCH | Donald Trump sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll, US jury rules × Trump's tirade at CNN town hall Trump's recent statements at a CNN town hall triggered Carroll to file another complaint. Notably, a day after a nine-member jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming the Elle magazine writer, he called her a 'whack job'. He added that Carroll was telling a "made-up story" and that he didn't know her, which according to Carroll's lawyers, comes under the category of further "defamatory statements". "Trump’s defamatory statements post-verdict show the depth of his malice toward Carroll since it is hard to imagine defamatory conduct that could possibly be more motivated by hatred, ill will, or spite," the complaint reads. "This conduct supports a very substantial punitive damages award in Carroll’s favor both to punish Trump, to deter him from engaging in further defamation, and to deter others from doing the same," it added. Also read | Trump rings in his 77th birthday with plethora of court cases awaiting him Previously, Carroll claimed that Trump had raped her at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury department store based on Fifth Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York, in the spring of 1996. After receiving the verdict in her favour, Carroll termed it a 'victory' for all women who are victims of sexual assault. Although the jury reached a unanimous decision regarding the defamation and sexual abuse, it did not agree with Carroll’s allegation that the former president raped her. After the verdict, Carroll termed it a 'victory' for all women who are victims of sexual assault. “The old view of the perfect victim was a woman who always screamed. A woman who immediately reported. A woman whose life was supposed to fold up and she’s never supposed to experience happiness again,” said Carroll. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Round two of E. Jean Carroll vs Trump defamation trial set for this date

Journalist E. Jean Carroll has requested a US court judge to amend her initial defamation case in which she received $5 million in damages, to include Donald Trump's recent statements at a CNN town hall.

Journalist E. Jean Carroll has requested a US court judge to amend her initial defamation case in which she received $5 million in damages, to include Donald Trump's recent statements at a CNN town hall. The former president repeated his claims at the interview which Carroll believes was another attempt at defaming her. According to Carroll's attorney, Trump's statements directly go to the issue of punitive damages which are intended to punish the person found liable. Notably, a day after a nine-member jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming the Elle magazine writer, he called her a 'whack job' on CNN. He added that Carroll was telling a "made-up story" and that he didn't know her, which according to Carroll's lawyers, comes under the category of further "defamatory statements". "Trump’s defamatory statements post-verdict show the depth of his malice toward Carroll since it is hard to imagine defamatory conduct that could possibly be more motivated by hatred, ill will, or spite," the complaint reads. "This conduct supports a very substantial punitive damages award in Carroll’s favor both to punish Trump, to deter him from engaging in further defamation, and to deter others from doing the same," it added. The Manhattan Federal Court earlier this month announced the verdict and awarded $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages to Carroll. The nine-member jury, comprising six men and three women, reached a unanimous verdict in less than three hours but did not agree with Carroll’s allegation that the former president raped her. WATCH | Donald Trump sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll, US jury rules × What did Carroll claim? The 79-year-old former columnist at Elle Magazine has claimed that Trump raped her at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury department store based on Fifth Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York, in the spring of 1996. During her testimony, Carroll said Trump's actions shattered her and she had been trying to get her life back. “I’m here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation and I’m here to try to get my life back,” Carroll testified. A victory for all women: Carroll After receiving the verdict in her favour, Carroll termed it a 'victory' for all women who are victims of sexual assault. “The old view of the perfect victim was a woman who always screamed. A woman who immediately reported. A woman whose life was supposed to fold up and she’s never supposed to experience happiness again,” said Carroll. ALSO READ | 'This verdict is for all women': E. Jean Carroll after jury holds Trump guilty of sexually abusing her “That was just shut down with this verdict, the death of the perfect victim has happened. Now this verdict is for all women," she added. Quizzed about what was going through her mind when the jury said they were not convinced that Trump raped her, Carroll said, “Well, I just immediately (said) in my own head, ‘Oh, yes, he did. Oh yes, he did.’” (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

E. Jean Carroll seeks new damages after Trump's CNN town hall tirade

The Gujarat high court announced on Saturday (April 29)&nbsp;that it will continue hearing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's plea on May 2 in which he is contesting the Surat sessions court's decision to deny a stay of his conviction in a criminal defamation case stemming from his remark regarding the "Modi surname."

Gandhi filed a criminal revision&nbsp;application&nbsp;with the Gujarat high court, challenging the ruling of the sessions court. Justice Hemant Prachchhak took up the case, as reported by PTI.&nbsp;

Gandhi's readmission as a member of Parliament could be possible if the high court accepts his appeal.&nbsp;After the case was brought before the high court judge&nbsp;Justice Gita Gopi on Wednesday for an urgent hearing, she decided not to hear it.

The court of Justice Prachchhak was then given the case.&nbsp;Gandhi is being represented in the high court by renowned attorney and Congress politician Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

On March 23, a metropolitan magistrate's court in Surat condemned the former president of the Congress to two years in prison after holding him guilty of violating Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 499 and 500 (criminal defamation) in a case brought by Gujarat MLA for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Purnesh Modi in 2019.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-to-ban-sugar-exports-amid-decline-in-production-report-587295">India to ban sugar exports amid decline in production: Report</a>

Gandhi, who was elected to the Lok Sabha in 2019 from the parliamentary constituency of Wayanad in Kerala, was later declared ineligible to serve as an MP under the terms of the Representation of the People Act.

He filed a petition for a stay of the conviction along with a challenge to the ruling before the Surat sessions court.

The judge on April 20 granted him bail but declined to stay the conviction.&nbsp;Gandhi's "How come all thieves have Modi surname" comment caused Purnesh Modi to initiate a criminal defamation lawsuit against him.

<h2>Important points on the defamation case</h2>

-&nbsp;Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul&nbsp;Gandhi, told the High Court that "very serious ex-facie vitiating factors of the trial raise grave apprehensions about the process of trial that led to the conviction."

-&nbsp;In his appeal in the Surat court to freeze the conviction,&nbsp;Gandhi said the court treated him harshly and was overwhelmingly influenced by his status as an MP.

ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;SCO Summit 2023: Rajnath Singh chairs SCO Defence Ministers meeting in New Delhi

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-2023-rajnath-singh-chairs-sco-defence-ministers-meeting-in-new-delhi-587250/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

-&nbsp;The judge disagreed with Gandhi's contention and said he had "failed to satisfy that by not staying the conviction and denying an opportunity to contest the election, an irreversible and irrevocable damage will be caused to him".

-&nbsp;Aiming at the Prime Minister over his surname, which he shares with fugitive businessmen Lalit Modi and Nirav Modi, Rahul Gandhi stated during the Lok Sabha election campaign in 2019: "How come all thieves have the common surname Modi."

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

The Gujarat high court announced on Saturday (April 29) that it will continue hearing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's plea on May 2 in which he is contesting the Surat sessions court's decision to deny a stay of his conviction in a criminal defamation case stemming from his remark regarding the "Modi surname.

The Gujarat high court announced on Saturday (April 29) that it will continue hearing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's plea on May 2 in which he is contesting the Surat sessions court's decision to deny a stay of his conviction in a criminal defamation case stemming from his remark regarding the "Modi surname." Gandhi filed a criminal revision application with the Gujarat high court, challenging the ruling of the sessions court. Justice Hemant Prachchhak took up the case, as reported by PTI. Gandhi's readmission as a member of Parliament could be possible if the high court accepts his appeal. After the case was brought before the high court judge Justice Gita Gopi on Wednesday for an urgent hearing, she decided not to hear it. The court of Justice Prachchhak was then given the case. Gandhi is being represented in the high court by renowned attorney and Congress politician Abhishek Manu Singhvi. On March 23, a metropolitan magistrate's court in Surat condemned the former president of the Congress to two years in prison after holding him guilty of violating Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 499 and 500 (criminal defamation) in a case brought by Gujarat MLA for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Purnesh Modi in 2019. ALSO READ | India to ban sugar exports amid decline in production: Report Gandhi, who was elected to the Lok Sabha in 2019 from the parliamentary constituency of Wayanad in Kerala, was later declared ineligible to serve as an MP under the terms of the Representation of the People Act. He filed a petition for a stay of the conviction along with a challenge to the ruling before the Surat sessions court. The judge on April 20 granted him bail but declined to stay the conviction. Gandhi's "How come all thieves have Modi surname" comment caused Purnesh Modi to initiate a criminal defamation lawsuit against him. Important points on the defamation case - Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, told the High Court that "very serious ex-facie vitiating factors of the trial raise grave apprehensions about the process of trial that led to the conviction." - In his appeal in the Surat court to freeze the conviction, Gandhi said the court treated him harshly and was overwhelmingly influenced by his status as an MP. ALSO WATCH | SCO Summit 2023: Rajnath Singh chairs SCO Defence Ministers meeting in New Delhi - The judge disagreed with Gandhi's contention and said he had "failed to satisfy that by not staying the conviction and denying an opportunity to contest the election, an irreversible and irrevocable damage will be caused to him". - Aiming at the Prime Minister over his surname, which he shares with fugitive businessmen Lalit Modi and Nirav Modi, Rahul Gandhi stated during the Lok Sabha election campaign in 2019: "How come all thieves have the common surname Modi." (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India: Gujarat High Court to resume hearing Rahul Gandhi’s defamation case appeal on May 2

Fox News dodged the possibility of a humiliating defamation trial, following a last-minute settlement on Tuesday (April 18),&nbsp;but it also suffered a major blow to its reputation.&nbsp;The network, one of the most influential and successful in the US, agreed to a $787.5 million settlement in a lawsuit brought by voting technology manufacturer Dominion for its reporting on false election fraud charges in the 2020 election.

Analysts said the settlement was a rare example that there may be an enormous price for blatant disinformation — even for once-untouchable media giants. Fox News managed to wriggle out of what was anticipated to be a dramatic trial.

"This can be seen as a wake-up call for live broadcasters and a reminder that there really is a difference between false factual statements, and knowingly broadcasting such false information, and protected speech," Roy Gutterman, a Syracuse University professor, told AFP.

<h2>Why did Dominion sue Fox News?</h2>

In its $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News, Dominion claimed that the network had supported Donald Trump's baseless assertion that the company's voting equipment had been tampered with, to rig the 2020 election in Joe Biden's favour.

"The evidence will show that Dominion was a valuable, rapidly growing business that was executing on its plan to expand prior to the time that Fox began endorsing baseless lies about Dominion voting machines," said a Dominion spokesperson in a statement, as reported by NPR.&nbsp;

"Following Fox's defamatory statements, Dominion's business suffered enormously, and its claim for compensatory damages is based on industry-standard valuation metrics and conservative methodologies. We look forward to proving this aspect of our case at trial," added the spokesperson.

The company claimed that because of baseless rumours that Dominion's voting machines altered votes for then-President Donald Trump to his opponent, Joe Biden, in the 2020 election, its staff and offices have endured years of fatal threats.

Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/fox-news-reportedly-trying-to-settle-with-dominion-amid-delay-in-defamation-trial-583391">Fox Corporation</a>, and hosts like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson will no longer&nbsp;have to testify as a result of the settlement.

"A loss -- and the trial process itself -- would have been much worse for&nbsp;Fox," John Culhane, a professor at Delaware Law School at Widener University, told AFP.

"They were staring down the prospect of a parade of high-profile witnesses having to try to defend their disinformation machinery to a jury. The audio would have been replayed a thousand times, forever," he added.&nbsp;

<h2>Fox News' image tarnished?</h2>

Numerous internal documents from Fox News, including emails and texts, were made public by Dominion, revealing that its executives questioned Trump's assertions and even voiced contempt for the former president despite adoring him on screen.

"The stain this leaves on&nbsp;Fox&nbsp;can't be wiped out with money," said Angelo Carusone, president of the advocacy group Media Matters, who spoke to AFP.

"The network has been completely exposed as a partisan propaganda outlet that is willing to do anything for profit and power," he added.&nbsp;

ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;Fox News settles Dominion defamation case for $787.5m

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/fox-news-settles-dominion-defamation-case-for-7875m-583906/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

According to US media, the broadcaster will not be required to apologise or acknowledge that it disseminated false information on network programming under the terms of the settlement.

But, the bigger question looms.&nbsp;Will the hefty settlement be enough to deter Fox network from doing the same in the future?&nbsp;

"Will&nbsp;Fox's disinformation engine be chastened? I doubt it," Gregory Miller, the co-founder of the nonpartisan, nonprofit OSET Institute, told AFP.

"It may bring about some cooling off, but I fear it will be in full gear," in the lead up to the 2024 presidential election, he added.&nbsp;

Experts anticipate a fiercely polarised election in 2024.&nbsp;

Trump is running for president for a third time and continues to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination after making the false allegation that the previous election had been rigged against him, which provoked a violent mob to attack the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

<h2 id="main-heading" tabindex="-1">Can Fox News&nbsp;afford the $787.5mn Dominion settlement?</h2>

The Rupert Murdoch-owned network has agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million.&nbsp;Although this&nbsp;will be a substantial&nbsp;compensation, Fox has escaped&nbsp;what some have called the "defamation trial of the century."

At almost $800m, it is one of the biggest ever financial settlements in a defamation case.&nbsp;However, it is less than half the $1.6bn ask initially put forward&nbsp;by Dominion.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/time-is-not-right-trump-ally-mike-pompeo-drops-out-of-2024-presidential-race-582769">'Time is not right...': Trump ally Mike Pompeo drops out of 2024 presidential race</a>

For context, parent firm Fox Corporation recorded net income of $1.23 billion for the most recent fiscal year.

Additionally, it has a significant cash reserve of $4 billion, as per recent company filings.

According to Forbes magazine, Rupert Murdoch and his family are estimated to be worth $17.6 billion. They are in charge of the News Corp media empire, which includes Fox News, The Times of London, and The Wall Street Journal.

Fox, however, won't be able to put the problems with its coverage of the 2020 presidential election behind them just yet.

Another electoral technology company, Smartmatic, has filed a second, similar defamation action against it and is seeking $2.7 billion.&nbsp;The $787.5 million payoff to&nbsp;Dominion might only be the&nbsp;the tip of the iceberg for Fox News.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo">&nbsp;</div>

Fox News dodged the possibility of a humiliating defamation trial, following a last-minute settlement on Tuesday (April 18), but it also suffered a major blow to its reputation.

Fox News dodged the possibility of a humiliating defamation trial, following a last-minute settlement on Tuesday (April 18), but it also suffered a major blow to its reputation. The network, one of the most influential and successful in the US, agreed to a $787.5 million settlement in a lawsuit brought by voting technology manufacturer Dominion for its reporting on false election fraud charges in the 2020 election. Analysts said the settlement was a rare example that there may be an enormous price for blatant disinformation — even for once-untouchable media giants. Fox News managed to wriggle out of what was anticipated to be a dramatic trial. "This can be seen as a wake-up call for live broadcasters and a reminder that there really is a difference between false factual statements, and knowingly broadcasting such false information, and protected speech," Roy Gutterman, a Syracuse University professor, told AFP. Why did Dominion sue Fox News? In its $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News, Dominion claimed that the network had supported Donald Trump's baseless assertion that the company's voting equipment had been tampered with, to rig the 2020 election in Joe Biden's favour. "The evidence will show that Dominion was a valuable, rapidly growing business that was executing on its plan to expand prior to the time that Fox began endorsing baseless lies about Dominion voting machines," said a Dominion spokesperson in a statement, as reported by NPR. "Following Fox's defamatory statements, Dominion's business suffered enormously, and its claim for compensatory damages is based on industry-standard valuation metrics and conservative methodologies. We look forward to proving this aspect of our case at trial," added the spokesperson. The company claimed that because of baseless rumours that Dominion's voting machines altered votes for then-President Donald Trump to his opponent, Joe Biden, in the 2020 election, its staff and offices have endured years of fatal threats. Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of Fox Corporation, and hosts like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson will no longer have to testify as a result of the settlement. "A loss -- and the trial process itself -- would have been much worse for Fox," John Culhane, a professor at Delaware Law School at Widener University, told AFP. "They were staring down the prospect of a parade of high-profile witnesses having to try to defend their disinformation machinery to a jury. The audio would have been replayed a thousand times, forever," he added. Fox News' image tarnished? Numerous internal documents from Fox News, including emails and texts, were made public by Dominion, revealing that its executives questioned Trump's assertions and even voiced contempt for the former president despite adoring him on screen. "The stain this leaves on Fox can't be wiped out with money," said Angelo Carusone, president of the advocacy group Media Matters, who spoke to AFP. "The network has been completely exposed as a partisan propaganda outlet that is willing to do anything for profit and power," he added. ALSO WATCH | Fox News settles Dominion defamation case for $787.5m According to US media, the broadcaster will not be required to apologise or acknowledge that it disseminated false information on network programming under the terms of the settlement. But, the bigger question looms. Will the hefty settlement be enough to deter Fox network from doing the same in the future? "Will Fox's disinformation engine be chastened? I doubt it," Gregory Miller, the co-founder of the nonpartisan, nonprofit OSET Institute, told AFP. "It may bring about some cooling off, but I fear it will be in full gear," in the lead up to the 2024 presidential election, he added. Experts anticipate a fiercely polarised election in 2024. Trump is running for president for a third time and continues to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination after making the false allegation that the previous election had been rigged against him, which provoked a violent mob to attack the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Can Fox News afford the $787.5mn Dominion settlement? The Rupert Murdoch-owned network has agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million. Although this will be a substantial compensation, Fox has escaped what some have called the "defamation trial of the century." At almost $800m, it is one of the biggest ever financial settlements in a defamation case. However, it is less than half the $1.6bn ask initially put forward by Dominion. ALSO READ | 'Time is not right...': Trump ally Mike Pompeo drops out of 2024 presidential race For context, parent firm Fox Corporation recorded net income of $1.23 billion for the most recent fiscal year. Additionally, it has a significant cash reserve of $4 billion, as per recent company filings. According to Forbes magazine, Rupert Murdoch and his family are estimated to be worth $17.6 billion. They are in charge of the News Corp media empire, which includes Fox News, The Times of London, and The Wall Street Journal. Fox, however, won't be able to put the problems with its coverage of the 2020 presidential election behind them just yet. Another electoral technology company, Smartmatic, has filed a second, similar defamation action against it and is seeking $2.7 billion. The $787.5 million payoff to Dominion might only be the the tip of the iceberg for Fox News. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Explained: Has Fox News lost credibility despite $787mn settlement with Dominion?

Fox News has settled a defamation lawsuit from the voting machine company, Dominion, over its reporting of the 2020 presidential election. In a last-minute settlement before trial, the network agreed to pay $787.5m (£644m) - about half of the $1.6bn initially sought by Dominion.

Fox News settles Dominion defamation case for $787.5m

Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the opposition Congress party, was found guilty of defamation and given a two-year prison sentence by a lower court on Friday. As a result, the Indian parliament has barred Gandhi from serving as a lawmaker.

India's parliament disqualifies opposition leader Rahul Gandhi

The Pakistan government has framed draft of a new law that will make defaming the Pakistan Army and judiciary through any medium a punishable offence.&nbsp;The government is mulling to amend the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by making defamation of army and judiciary punishable and those convicted will be jailed for five years, reported the Dawn newspaper while claiming it has access to the draft bill,

The draft bill&nbsp;initiated by the Ministry of Interior and has already been vetted by the Ministry of Law and Justice and has now been sent to the federal cabinet for approval.

The proposed bill comes in the wake of a spate of scandalous and derogatory attacks on certain institutions of the state, including the judiciary and armed forces, the summary of the bill states.

The bill titled Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2023, suggests a new section 500A to be added after section 500 in PPC 1860. The new section is titled ‘Intentional ridiculing or scandalising of the state institutions etc.’

According to the new section, whoever makes, publishes, circulates any statement or disseminates information, through any medium, with an intention to ridicule or scandalise the judiciary, the armed forces or any of their member will be guilty of an offence punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with a fine which may extend to Rs 1 million or with both.

Similarly, in the Schedule II of the PPC, a new section titled 500A has been added to section 500, which says that the offender will be arrested without a warrant and the offence will be non-bailable and non-compoundable which can only be challenged in a sessions court.

Former prime minister and member of the ruling PML-N Shahid Khaqan Abbasi initially extended his support to the proposed bill, but later backtracked from it.

“Everywhere in the world there is a defamation law and this does not happen that anyone comes up willy-nilly and says whatever they want,” he told Dawn.

But later in the day, Abbasi distanced himself from his comments and tweeted that he “simply cannot lend support to any draconian legislation”.

“I believe that Pakistan needs defamation laws with financial recourse to protect everyone from unsubstantiated accusations,” he said.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The Pakistan government has framed draft of a new law that will make defaming the Pakistan Army and judiciary through any medium a punishable offence. The government is mulling to amend the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by making defamation of army and judiciary punishable and those convicted will be jailed for five years, reported the Dawn newspaper while claiming it has access to the draft bill, The draft bill initiated by the Ministry of Interior and has already been vetted by the Ministry of Law and Justice and has now been sent to the federal cabinet for approval.

The Pakistan government has framed draft of a new law that will make defaming the Pakistan Army and judiciary through any medium a punishable offence. The government is mulling to amend the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by making defamation of army and judiciary punishable and those convicted will be jailed for five years, reported the Dawn newspaper while claiming it has access to the draft bill, The draft bill initiated by the Ministry of Interior and has already been vetted by the Ministry of Law and Justice and has now been sent to the federal cabinet for approval. The proposed bill comes in the wake of a spate of scandalous and derogatory attacks on certain institutions of the state, including the judiciary and armed forces, the summary of the bill states. The bill titled Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2023, suggests a new section 500A to be added after section 500 in PPC 1860. The new section is titled ‘Intentional ridiculing or scandalising of the state institutions etc.’ According to the new section, whoever makes, publishes, circulates any statement or disseminates information, through any medium, with an intention to ridicule or scandalise the judiciary, the armed forces or any of their member will be guilty of an offence punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with a fine which may extend to Rs 1 million or with both. Similarly, in the Schedule II of the PPC, a new section titled 500A has been added to section 500, which says that the offender will be arrested without a warrant and the offence will be non-bailable and non-compoundable which can only be challenged in a sessions court. Former prime minister and member of the ruling PML-N Shahid Khaqan Abbasi initially extended his support to the proposed bill, but later backtracked from it. “Everywhere in the world there is a defamation law and this does not happen that anyone comes up willy-nilly and says whatever they want,” he told Dawn. But later in the day, Abbasi distanced himself from his comments and tweeted that he “simply cannot lend support to any draconian legislation”. “I believe that Pakistan needs defamation laws with financial recourse to protect everyone from unsubstantiated accusations,” he said. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Pakistan govt proposes 5-year jail term, Rs 1mn fine for defamation of army, judiciary in new bill

Months after fighting a defamation suit with ex-husband Johnny Depp, Amber Heard is about to settle defamation claims that were brought against her by her ex-husband Johnny Depp. Amber Heard is bound to pay $10 mn to Johnny Depp as per previous trial.

Amber Heard to settle defamation claims against her filed by ex-husband Johnny Depp

A Turkish court on Wednesday sentenced Istanbul’s popular opposition mayor to over two years jail in a politically charged defamation trial that effectively bars him from standing in next June’s presidential election.

Istanbul mayor gets over two years in prison and barred from politics

Istanbul mayor and Erdogan rival Imamoglu sentenced to jail

Former US president Donald Trump has given sworn testimony on Wednesday in response to a defamation lawsuit by magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, who claims that he sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.

Carroll's attorneys had the opportunity to question Trump during the deposition over the alleged assault as well as remarks he made in 2019 when she first shared her account in public.

The deposition's outcome was not immediately made public. It's also not clear if Trump appeared physically or via video link.

“We’re pleased that on behalf of our client, E. Jean Carroll, we were able to take Donald Trump’s deposition today. We are not able to comment further,” the law firm representing her, Kaplan Hecker &amp; Fink, said in a statement.

Trump has said Carroll’s rape allegation is “a hoax and a lie.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/igor-danchenko-us-acquits-russian-on-charges-he-lied-to-fbi-over-steele-dossier-526653">Igor Danchenko: US jury acquits Russian on charges he lied to FBI over 'Steele dossier'</a>

His legal team fought for years to put off his deposition in the lawsuit, which was brought when the Republican was still in office. Last week, a federal court denied Trump's plea for a further delay, stating that he couldn't&nbsp;“run the clock out on plaintiff’s attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong.”

Any statements made by Trump in his deposition could possibly be used as proof in a future civil trial. Carroll's allegations have not been the subject of any criminal charges against him, and they are unlikely to be. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/man-found-guilty-of-killing-california-student-kristin-smart-in-1996-526614">Criminal prosecution</a> for suspected sexual assaults from the 1990s is no longer possible.

Civil cases alleging sexual assault were also subject to same legal deadlines.

However, New York lawmakers recently granted individuals a one-year opportunity to file civil court lawsuits for historical sexual assault accusations.

Carroll ultimately decided to file a defamation lawsuit against Trump over remarks he made in 2019 in which he denied any wrongdoing. She claims that his denials and criticisms of her integrity and credibility hurt her reputation. 
(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

Former US president Donald Trump has given sworn testimony on Wednesday in response to a defamation lawsuit by magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, who claims that he sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.

Former US president Donald Trump has given sworn testimony on Wednesday in response to a defamation lawsuit by magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, who claims that he sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Carroll's attorneys had the opportunity to question Trump during the deposition over the alleged assault as well as remarks he made in 2019 when she first shared her account in public. The deposition's outcome was not immediately made public. It's also not clear if Trump appeared physically or via video link. “We’re pleased that on behalf of our client, E. Jean Carroll, we were able to take Donald Trump’s deposition today. We are not able to comment further,” the law firm representing her, Kaplan Hecker & Fink, said in a statement. Trump has said Carroll’s rape allegation is “a hoax and a lie.” Also read | Igor Danchenko: US jury acquits Russian on charges he lied to FBI over 'Steele dossier' His legal team fought for years to put off his deposition in the lawsuit, which was brought when the Republican was still in office. Last week, a federal court denied Trump's plea for a further delay, stating that he couldn't “run the clock out on plaintiff’s attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong.” Any statements made by Trump in his deposition could possibly be used as proof in a future civil trial. Carroll's allegations have not been the subject of any criminal charges against him, and they are unlikely to be. Criminal prosecution for suspected sexual assaults from the 1990s is no longer possible. Civil cases alleging sexual assault were also subject to same legal deadlines. However, New York lawmakers recently granted individuals a one-year opportunity to file civil court lawsuits for historical sexual assault accusations. Carroll ultimately decided to file a defamation lawsuit against Trump over remarks he made in 2019 in which he denied any wrongdoing. She claims that his denials and criticisms of her integrity and credibility hurt her reputation. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Trump deposed in E. Jean Carroll defamation case linked to rape accusation

Former United States President Donald Trump has sued television network CNN for defamation and according to The Guardian, he will be seeking damages worth $ 475 million. According to the Florida court filing, Trump accused CNN of using its influence to “defeat Trump politically”.

“Beyond simply highlighting any negative information about the plaintiff and ignoring all positive information about him, CNN has sought to use its massive influence, purportedly as a ‘trusted’ news source, to defame the plaintiff in the minds of its viewers and readers for the purpose of defeating him politically,” the court filing stated according to a report by the Washington Post.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russias-state-duma-ratifies-documents-on-annexation-of-ukrainian-territories-522190" hreflang="en">Russia’s State Duma ratifies documents on annexation of Ukrainian territories</a>

Trump’s lawyers said that CNN attempted to ruin his name “with a series of ever-more scandalous, false, and defamatory labels of ‘racist,’ ‘Russian lackey,’ ‘insurrectionist,’ and ultimately ‘Hitler’”.

Trump is already embroiled in controversy with the Department of Justice looking into the classified documents found by the FBI during the raid on Mar-a-Lago. The raid was conducted after witnesses claimed that the residence housed a number of secret documents from Trump’s tenure as president.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/proposed-uk-tax-cuts-caused-a-little-turbulence-says-finance-minister-kwasi-kwarteng-522165" hreflang="en">Proposed UK tax cuts caused ‘a little turbulence’, says finance minister Kwasi Kwarteng</a>

During the raid, over 11,000 records were found with 100 marked classified, an affidavit claimed. However, the DOJ later decreased the number of classified ones to 53 in their sworn declaration.

Trump, however, denied all allegations and said that it was a ploy to attack him politically ahead of the mid-term elections. He also alleged that the FBI planted evidence at his Florida residence, but his lawyers did not include it officially in their arguments.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Former United States President Donald Trump has sued television network CNN for defamation and according to The Guardian, he will be seeking damages worth $ 475 million.

Former United States President Donald Trump has sued television network CNN for defamation and according to The Guardian, he will be seeking damages worth $ 475 million. According to the Florida court filing, Trump accused CNN of using its influence to “defeat Trump politically”. “Beyond simply highlighting any negative information about the plaintiff and ignoring all positive information about him, CNN has sought to use its massive influence, purportedly as a ‘trusted’ news source, to defame the plaintiff in the minds of its viewers and readers for the purpose of defeating him politically,” the court filing stated according to a report by the Washington Post. Also read | Russia’s State Duma ratifies documents on annexation of Ukrainian territories Trump’s lawyers said that CNN attempted to ruin his name “with a series of ever-more scandalous, false, and defamatory labels of ‘racist,’ ‘Russian lackey,’ ‘insurrectionist,’ and ultimately ‘Hitler’”. Trump is already embroiled in controversy with the Department of Justice looking into the classified documents found by the FBI during the raid on Mar-a-Lago. The raid was conducted after witnesses claimed that the residence housed a number of secret documents from Trump’s tenure as president. Also read | Proposed UK tax cuts caused ‘a little turbulence’, says finance minister Kwasi Kwarteng During the raid, over 11,000 records were found with 100 marked classified, an affidavit claimed. However, the DOJ later decreased the number of classified ones to 53 in their sworn declaration. Trump, however, denied all allegations and said that it was a ploy to attack him politically ahead of the mid-term elections. He also alleged that the FBI planted evidence at his Florida residence, but his lawyers did not include it officially in their arguments.

Donald Trump sues CNN for defamation, seeks damages worth $475 million

Let us take a look at stories generating interest across WION's social media channels.

Trending on WION: Donald Trump sues CNN for defamation

Former US President Donald Trump sued CNN for defamation, seeking $475 million in punitive damages and claiming the network had carried out a campaign of libel and slander against him.

Former US President Donald Trump sues CNN for defamation and seeks $475m in punitive damages

Google has lost a defamation case filed by a Retired Australian MP. The court observed that Google defamed the Retired Australian MP by hosting videos on YouTube.

Court: Google defamed Retired Australian MP by hosting videos on YouTube

Johnny Depp won a defamation suit against his former wife Amber Heard after a jury found that she had lied in saying that Depp had abused her over the course of their relationship. The court has also ordered Heard to pay $15 million in damages.

Johnny Depp wins defamation case against Amber Heard: Key takeaways from trial

Johnny Depp won a defamation suit Wednesday against his former wife Amber Heard after a jury found that she had lied in saying that Depp had abused her over the course of their relationship. The court has also ordered Heard to pay $15 million in damages.

Johnny Depp wins defamation case, ex-wife Amber Heard ordered to pay $15 million

Actor Johnny Depp has won defamation case against ex-wife Amber Heard, who he sued over claims of domestic abuse.&nbsp;The jury has awarded USD 15 million in damages to Johnny Depp. Jury has also awarded Amber Heard USD 2 million over her countersuit.

Depp, the 58-year-old "Pirates of the Caribbean" star, sued Heard for $50 million and argued that she defamed him when she called herself "a public figure representing domestic abuse" in a newspaper opinion piece.

Heard, a 36-year-old actress, countersued for $100 million, saying Depp smeared her when his lawyer called her accusations a "hoax."

Depp has denied hitting Heard or any woman and said she was the one who turned violent in their relationship.

Check out | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/johnny-depp-wins-a-look-back-at-all-the-shocking-revelations-made-in-the-case-484261#dr-shannon-currys-revalations!-474233">Johnny Depp wins! A look back at all the shocking revelations made in the case</a>

At the center of the legal battle was an opinion piece penned by Amber Heard in December 2018. The opinion piece was printed in Washington Post. In it, Amber Heard had made the statement against domestic abuse. Johnny Depp was not mentioned by name in the article. However, Depp's lawyer told the jurors that Heard was referring to 'Pirates of the Carribean' actor.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/new-chapter-has-begun-says-johnny-depp-after-winning-case-against-amber-heard-484275">'New chapter has begun', says Johnny Depp after winning case against Amber Heard</a>

Johnny Depp was not physically present when the verdict was read out. Amber Heard was present in the courtroom.

Soon after the verdict was announced, Johnny Depp posted a statement from his Facebook account.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0" height="498" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fphoto.php%3Ffbid%3D558663879154404%26set%3Da.183579036662892%26type%3D3&amp;show_text=true&amp;width=500" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="500"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Depp and Heard met in 2011 while filming "The Rum Diary" and wed in February 2015. Their divorce was finalized about two years later.

(With inputs from agencies)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Actor Johnny Depp has won defamation case against ex-wife Amber Heard, who he sued over claims of domestic abuse. The jury has awarded USD 15 million in damages to Johnny Depp.

Actor Johnny Depp has won defamation case against ex-wife Amber Heard, who he sued over claims of domestic abuse. The jury has awarded USD 15 million in damages to Johnny Depp. Jury has also awarded Amber Heard USD 2 million over her countersuit. Depp, the 58-year-old "Pirates of the Caribbean" star, sued Heard for $50 million and argued that she defamed him when she called herself "a public figure representing domestic abuse" in a newspaper opinion piece. Heard, a 36-year-old actress, countersued for $100 million, saying Depp smeared her when his lawyer called her accusations a "hoax." Depp has denied hitting Heard or any woman and said she was the one who turned violent in their relationship. Check out | Johnny Depp wins! A look back at all the shocking revelations made in the case At the center of the legal battle was an opinion piece penned by Amber Heard in December 2018. The opinion piece was printed in Washington Post. In it, Amber Heard had made the statement against domestic abuse. Johnny Depp was not mentioned by name in the article. However, Depp's lawyer told the jurors that Heard was referring to 'Pirates of the Carribean' actor. Also Read | 'New chapter has begun', says Johnny Depp after winning case against Amber Heard Johnny Depp was not physically present when the verdict was read out. Amber Heard was present in the courtroom. Soon after the verdict was announced, Johnny Depp posted a statement from his Facebook account. × Depp and Heard met in 2011 while filming "The Rum Diary" and wed in February 2015. Their divorce was finalized about two years later. (With inputs from agencies) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Johnny Depp wins defamation case against ex-wife Amber Heard

The climax of Hollywood's famous defamation case is about to be reached. The seven-person jury deliberations are underway.

Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard: Seven-person jury deliberations underway

Hollywood Defamation Trial: Actor Johnny Depp has taken to the stand again to testify and refute ex-wife Amber Heard's claims of abuse, watch this report for more.

'It's ridiculous,' Johnny Depp refutes ex-wife Amber Heard's testimony in defamation trial

Amber Heard took the witness stand in Johnny Depp’s defamation case against her. After bursting into tears, she alleged that her ex-husband Johnny Depp had turned violent against her.

Hollywood's $50 million defamation trial: Amber Heard describes a graphic sexual assault

Lawyers representing Amber have cross-examined Johnny Depp for hours after he brought a defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife. Depp was challenged over vulgar text messages, his drug use and drinking.

Hollywood's defamation case: Johnny Depp's cross examination concludes

In the infamous defamation in Hollywood, Johnny Depp & Amber Heard have headed back to court. The trial on allegations of spousal abuse is in the court. Now, Johnny Depp testifies for three hours.

High profile Hollywood defamation case: Johnny Depp testifies for three hours

In the infamous defamation in Hollywood, Johnny Depp & Amber Heard have headed back to court. The trial on allegations of spousal abuse is in the court.

Hollywood's defamation case: Johnny Depp & Amber Heard head back to court

defamation

Defamation, News on Defamation, stories on Defamation, articles on Defamation, Defamation stories at Wion, Defamation news, Defamation latest news