News outlet CNN has said it scrapped its Facebook presence in Australia claiming that the social media behemoth refused to disable the comments section, while also citing the country’s high court ruling which made publishers responsible for defamatory comments posted by users on social media.

The move reportedly makes CNN the first major news organisation to pull its Facebook presence in Australia.

CNN said that Facebook declined a request to help it and other publishers disable public comments in the country following the ruling.

CNN's main Facebook page showed an error message when accessed from Australia on Wednesday.

<img alt="CNN's main Facebook page showed an error message when accessed from Australia on Wednesday" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="f298644e-0457-4d42-a697-e3f66de89692" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/FB.jpg" />

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australian-media-may-rethink-facebook-presence-416130">Australian media may rethink facebook presence</a>

“We are disappointed that Facebook, once again, has failed to ensure its platform is a place for credible journalism and productive dialogue around current events among its users,” a CNN spokeswoman said in a statement.

A Facebook spokesperson suggested that the Australian defamation law needed reform and the company looked forward to “greater clarity and certainty in this area”.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/court-rules-australian-news-outlets-can-be-sued-for-comments-on-social-media-posts-411728">&nbsp;Court rules Australian news outlets can be sued for comments on social media posts</a>

“While it’s not our place to provide legal guidance to CNN, we have provided them with the latest information on tools we make available to help publishers manage comments,” the spokesperson told Reuters.

Social media is a central channel for distributing content in Australia, with about two-thirds of the country's 25 million population on Facebook, according to industry figures.

About a third of the country's population used Facebook to source news in 2021, a University of Canberra report said.

“The fact that a foreign outlet like CNN are pulling out shows the degree of concern that Australia's laws have not kept up with the pace of technological change,” Matt Collins, a prominent defamation lawyer, told Reuters.

CNN would have no equivalent exposure in the United States and relatively little exposure in Britain or other English-speaking countries like New Zealand, he added.

(With inputs from agencies)

News outlet CNN has said it scrapped its Facebook presence in Australia claiming that the social media behemoth refused to disable the comments section, while also citing the country’s high court ruling which made publishers responsible for defamatory comments posted by users on social media.

News outlet CNN has said it scrapped its Facebook presence in Australia claiming that the social media behemoth refused to disable the comments section, while also citing the country’s high court ruling which made publishers responsible for defamatory comments posted by users on social media. The move reportedly makes CNN the first major news organisation to pull its Facebook presence in Australia. CNN said that Facebook declined a request to help it and other publishers disable public comments in the country following the ruling. CNN's main Facebook page showed an error message when accessed from Australia on Wednesday. Also read | Australian media may rethink facebook presence “We are disappointed that Facebook, once again, has failed to ensure its platform is a place for credible journalism and productive dialogue around current events among its users,” a CNN spokeswoman said in a statement. A Facebook spokesperson suggested that the Australian defamation law needed reform and the company looked forward to “greater clarity and certainty in this area”. Also read | Court rules Australian news outlets can be sued for comments on social media posts “While it’s not our place to provide legal guidance to CNN, we have provided them with the latest information on tools we make available to help publishers manage comments,” the spokesperson told Reuters. Social media is a central channel for distributing content in Australia, with about two-thirds of the country's 25 million population on Facebook, according to industry figures. About a third of the country's population used Facebook to source news in 2021, a University of Canberra report said. “The fact that a foreign outlet like CNN are pulling out shows the degree of concern that Australia's laws have not kept up with the pace of technological change,” Matt Collins, a prominent defamation lawyer, told Reuters. CNN would have no equivalent exposure in the United States and relatively little exposure in Britain or other English-speaking countries like New Zealand, he added. (With inputs from agencies)

CNN pulls out of Facebook in Australia, citing defamation risk

Venezuela's supreme court has awarded $13 million to top socialist party official Diosdado Cabello in a defamation case against a newspaper, but the paper’s lawyer said on Saturday, the outlet could not afford to pay. &nbsp;

Cabello, the second-highest ranking official in the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) after President Nicolas Maduro, sued the El Nacional newspaper in 2015 after it reprinted a Spanish newspaper article asserting US officials were investigating Cabello for alleged ties to drug trafficking.&nbsp;

Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) on Friday ruled that El Nacional must pay damages to Cabello worth 237,000 petros, a digital currency launched by Maduro in 2018 tied to the price of oil. The petro's current value is $56, according to Venezuela's central bank. &nbsp;

Juan Garanton, an attorney for El Nacional, said in a telephone interview on Saturday that the paper would ask the court to clarify how it arrived at that figure, a first step toward potentially asking the court to lower the amount.&nbsp;

"It is an astronomical amount," Garanton said.&nbsp;

Cabello denies any links to drug trafficking. &nbsp;

Neither the PSUV, the court nor Venezuela's information ministry responded to requests for comment. &nbsp;

El Nacional is part-owned by prominent Madrid-based Venezuelan journalist Miguel Henrique Otero and other relatives of his late father, Miguel Otero Silva, one of Venezuela's most celebrated writers.&nbsp;

Opponents of Maduro's government accuse it of using the justice system to silence its critics, including in the media. The Caracas chapter of Venezuela's National College of Journalists on Saturday called the ruling 'a further step toward the liquidation of freedom of expression in Venezuela’.&nbsp;

Government officials frequently accuse independent media outlets of publishing false information as part of a campaign backed by the opposition and the United States to destabilise the government. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Venezuela's supreme court has awarded $13 million to top socialist party official Diosdado Cabello in a defamation case against a newspaper, but the paper’s lawyer said on Saturday, the outlet could not afford to pay.

Venezuela's supreme court has awarded $13 million to top socialist party official Diosdado Cabello in a defamation case against a newspaper, but the paper’s lawyer said on Saturday, the outlet could not afford to pay. Cabello, the second-highest ranking official in the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) after President Nicolas Maduro, sued the El Nacional newspaper in 2015 after it reprinted a Spanish newspaper article asserting US officials were investigating Cabello for alleged ties to drug trafficking. Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) on Friday ruled that El Nacional must pay damages to Cabello worth 237,000 petros, a digital currency launched by Maduro in 2018 tied to the price of oil. The petro's current value is $56, according to Venezuela's central bank. Juan Garanton, an attorney for El Nacional, said in a telephone interview on Saturday that the paper would ask the court to clarify how it arrived at that figure, a first step toward potentially asking the court to lower the amount. "It is an astronomical amount," Garanton said. Cabello denies any links to drug trafficking. Neither the PSUV, the court nor Venezuela's information ministry responded to requests for comment. El Nacional is part-owned by prominent Madrid-based Venezuelan journalist Miguel Henrique Otero and other relatives of his late father, Miguel Otero Silva, one of Venezuela's most celebrated writers. Opponents of Maduro's government accuse it of using the justice system to silence its critics, including in the media. The Caracas chapter of Venezuela's National College of Journalists on Saturday called the ruling 'a further step toward the liquidation of freedom of expression in Venezuela’. Government officials frequently accuse independent media outlets of publishing false information as part of a campaign backed by the opposition and the United States to destabilise the government. (With inputs from agencies)

Venezuelan paper ordered to pay $13 million to official in defamation case 

In an exclusive chat with WION, activist Roy Ngerng, who crowdfunded to pay the penalty for libel against Singapore PM, talks about why he thinks people chose to support him.

Singapore: Blogger crowd funds defamation damages

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a U.S. government request to drop Donald Trump as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit by a writer who said the president falsely denied raping her in a Manhattan department store a quarter century ago.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan refused to let the government substitute itself for Trump as a defendant in former Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll`s lawsuit.

Kaplan`s decision is a defeat for Trump, because dropping him as a defendant would have shielded him from liability and likely doomed Carroll`s defamation claim.

Acting at the behest of Attorney General William Barr, the Department of Justice has argued that Trump acted in his official capacity when denying Carroll`s accusations, and therefore could not be sued personally for defamation.

But the judge said Trump was not an "employee of the government" entitled to be shielded from Carroll`s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Kaplan also said Trump did not make his statements within the scope of his "employment" as president.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Carroll`s lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a U.S. government request to drop Donald Trump as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit by a writer who said the president falsely denied raping her in a Manhattan department store a quarter century ago.

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a U.S. government request to drop Donald Trump as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit by a writer who said the president falsely denied raping her in a Manhattan department store a quarter century ago. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan refused to let the government substitute itself for Trump as a defendant in former Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll`s lawsuit. Kaplan`s decision is a defeat for Trump, because dropping him as a defendant would have shielded him from liability and likely doomed Carroll`s defamation claim. Acting at the behest of Attorney General William Barr, the Department of Justice has argued that Trump acted in his official capacity when denying Carroll`s accusations, and therefore could not be sued personally for defamation. But the judge said Trump was not an "employee of the government" entitled to be shielded from Carroll`s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Kaplan also said Trump did not make his statements within the scope of his "employment" as president. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Carroll`s lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Judge rejects US request to shield Trump from rape accuser's defamation lawsuit

The US Justice Department on Tuesday asked to take over the defence of President Donald Trump in&nbsp;a defamation lawsuit that was filed against him by E. Jean Carroll. She has accused Trump of sexual assault.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/signs-of-stress-appear-in-us-president-trumps-relationship-with-the-military-326094" hreflang="en">Signs of stress appear in US President Trump's relationship with the military</a>

The move by the Justice Department of defending Trump at taxpayer's expense comes amidst the ongoing criticism that it has acted in Donald Trump's personal interests. According to the Justice Department, it must take over because Trump's comments on the defamation lawsuit came while he was in office.&nbsp;

"President Trump was acting within the scope of his office as President of the United States at the time of the incidents out of which the Plaintiff's defamation claim arose. Indeed, when providing the challenged statements, the President was speaking to or responding to inquiries from the press, much as the elected officials in the cases cited above were speaking to the press or making other public statements at the time of their challenged actions," the Justice Department's court filing stated.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-trumps-billion-dollar-campaign-has-lost-cash-advantage-326021" hreflang="en">US election 2020: Trump's billion-dollar campaign has lost 'cash advantage'</a>

"The Westfall Act accordingly requires the substitution of the United States as defendant in this action," the department added.

E. Jean Carroll filed the lawsuit in November last year, where she alleged that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at luxury Manhattan department store Bergdorf Goodman in the 1990s. Trump denied these allegations, he called it "totally false" and said that he "never met this person in my life."

"Even in today's world, that argument is shocking," said Roberta Kaplan, Carroll's Lawyer on the Justice Department's logic.&nbsp;

After the move by the Justice Department, Carroll issued a statement on Tuesday, which said: "Today’s actions demonstrate that Trump will do everything possible, including using the full powers of the federal government, to block discovery from going forward in my case before the upcoming election to try to prevent a jury from ever deciding which one of us is lying."

The US Justice Department on Tuesday asked to take over the defence of President Donald Trump in a defamation lawsuit that was filed against him by E. Jean Carroll.

The US Justice Department on Tuesday asked to take over the defence of President Donald Trump in a defamation lawsuit that was filed against him by E. Jean Carroll. She has accused Trump of sexual assault. Also read: Signs of stress appear in US President Trump's relationship with the military The move by the Justice Department of defending Trump at taxpayer's expense comes amidst the ongoing criticism that it has acted in Donald Trump's personal interests. According to the Justice Department, it must take over because Trump's comments on the defamation lawsuit came while he was in office. "President Trump was acting within the scope of his office as President of the United States at the time of the incidents out of which the Plaintiff's defamation claim arose. Indeed, when providing the challenged statements, the President was speaking to or responding to inquiries from the press, much as the elected officials in the cases cited above were speaking to the press or making other public statements at the time of their challenged actions," the Justice Department's court filing stated. Also read: US election 2020: Trump's billion-dollar campaign has lost 'cash advantage' "The Westfall Act accordingly requires the substitution of the United States as defendant in this action," the department added. E. Jean Carroll filed the lawsuit in November last year, where she alleged that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at luxury Manhattan department store Bergdorf Goodman in the 1990s. Trump denied these allegations, he called it "totally false" and said that he "never met this person in my life." "Even in today's world, that argument is shocking," said Roberta Kaplan, Carroll's Lawyer on the Justice Department's logic. After the move by the Justice Department, Carroll issued a statement on Tuesday, which said: "Today’s actions demonstrate that Trump will do everything possible, including using the full powers of the federal government, to block discovery from going forward in my case before the upcoming election to try to prevent a jury from ever deciding which one of us is lying."

US Justice Department seeks to defend Trump in E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Pakistan's Dawn newspaper Hameed Haroon on Monday sent a defamation notice to film director <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/film-maker-stirs-pakistan-metoo-debate-with-rape-allegation-257954">Jamshed 'Jami' Mahmood</a> seeking an "unconditional public apology" and the retraction of rape accusations that the former had alleged against him.

The two have been involved in a public dispute since Jami last year in October came forward with the accusation that he was raped by a "media tycoon" 13 years ago and on December 28, named Haroon as his alleged rapist, sources reported.

In response, Haroon had issued a statement categorically rejecting the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistani-media-mogul-rejects-rape-accusations-by-filmmaker-271209">rape accusations</a> and saying he would initiate legal action.

"Almost two months after circulating your first tweet on being allegedly raped, and strangely and abruptly travelling outside Pakistan, on December 28, 2019, on the social media platform Twitter, you falsely and maliciously labelled our client as an alleged rapist," said the four-page-long legal notice sent today.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Why im so strongly supporting <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/metoo?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#metoo</a> ? cuz i know exactly how it happens now, inside a room then outside courts inside courts and how a survivor hides confides cuz i was brutally raped by a very powerful person in our media world. A Giant actually. and yes im taller than him but
— jami (@jamiazaad) <a href="https://twitter.com/jamiazaad/status/1185980753584316418?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Since then, you have been continuing to circulate this false allegation all over <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/imran-chishti-the-man-who-incited-nankana-sahib-gurdwara-violence-arrested-272549">Pakistan</a>, including Karachi and abroad. Our client categorically denies that he has ever perpetrated the sexual assault on anyone and categorically denies that he has raped you," it added.

The notice also said that unless Jami circulates an unconditional public apology and issues a public statement retracting his allegation of rape from all social media posts and other media outlets within 14 days of the receipt of this notice, Haroon reserves the right to initiate civil and criminal legal proceedings against the director under Section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, and other applicable laws.

Jami, who is currently in the United States, told sources that he has received the notice and is in the process of perusing it. 
"He added, however, that an apology was 'not even a distant possibility'," said reports. "There is a lot that needs to be done for victims of sexual harassment and for future victims," Jami was quoted as saying.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-will-not-become-part-of-this-us-iran-conflict-shah-mehmood-qureshi-pak-foreign-minister-272573">'Pakistan will not become part of US-Iran conflict': Pakistan Foreign Minister Qureshi</a>

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Pakistan's Dawn newspaper Hameed Haroon on Monday sent a defamation notice to film director Jamshed 'Jami' Mahmood seeking an "unconditional public apology" and the retraction of rape accusations that the former had alleged against him.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Pakistan's Dawn newspaper Hameed Haroon on Monday sent a defamation notice to film director Jamshed 'Jami' Mahmood seeking an "unconditional public apology" and the retraction of rape accusations that the former had alleged against him. The two have been involved in a public dispute since Jami last year in October came forward with the accusation that he was raped by a "media tycoon" 13 years ago and on December 28, named Haroon as his alleged rapist, sources reported. In response, Haroon had issued a statement categorically rejecting the rape accusations and saying he would initiate legal action. "Almost two months after circulating your first tweet on being allegedly raped, and strangely and abruptly travelling outside Pakistan, on December 28, 2019, on the social media platform Twitter, you falsely and maliciously labelled our client as an alleged rapist," said the four-page-long legal notice sent today. Why im so strongly supporting #metoo ? cuz i know exactly how it happens now, inside a room then outside courts inside courts and how a survivor hides confides cuz i was brutally raped by a very powerful person in our media world. A Giant actually. and yes im taller than him but — jami (@jamiazaad) October 20, 2019 × "Since then, you have been continuing to circulate this false allegation all over Pakistan, including Karachi and abroad. Our client categorically denies that he has ever perpetrated the sexual assault on anyone and categorically denies that he has raped you," it added. The notice also said that unless Jami circulates an unconditional public apology and issues a public statement retracting his allegation of rape from all social media posts and other media outlets within 14 days of the receipt of this notice, Haroon reserves the right to initiate civil and criminal legal proceedings against the director under Section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, and other applicable laws. Jami, who is currently in the United States, told sources that he has received the notice and is in the process of perusing it. "He added, however, that an apology was 'not even a distant possibility'," said reports. "There is a lot that needs to be done for victims of sexual harassment and for future victims," Jami was quoted as saying. Also Read: 'Pakistan will not become part of US-Iran conflict': Pakistan Foreign Minister Qureshi

Rape accused Dawn media CEO Haroon sends defamation notice to Jami

A Delhi court on Wednesday stayed the non-bailable warrants, which were issued against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and Swaraj India president Yogendra Yadav after they had failed to appear before it in a criminal defamation complaint filed in 2013. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal passed the order after lawyers for the three leaders sought cancellation of the NBWs.

The court said it will take up the main matter on April 29. Sharma, in his complaint, had alleged that in 2013 he was approached by volunteers of AAP who had asked him to contest the Delhi Assembly elections on a party ticket, saying Kejriwal was pleased with his social services. He filled up the application form to contest the polls after being told by Sisodia and Yadav that AAP’s Political Affairs Committee had decided to give him the ticket.

However, it was later denied to him. On October 14, 2013, the complainant claimed that articles in leading newspapers carried “defamatory, unlawful and derogatory words used by the accused persons” which have lowered his reputation in the Bar and the society. Opposing the complaint, the AAP leaders had submitted that cancellation or allotment of an election ticket is the prerogative of the party and the complainant had not divulged correct information as to the cases pending against him.

On the basis of the complaint, the trial court had earlier sought their presence before it in the matter. It had, however, granted bail to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Yadav after they had appeared before it in pursuance to summonses against them. The summonses were issued on the complaint under sections 499, 500 (defamation) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC, with the trial court saying there was prima facie material to summon the accused.

A Delhi court on Wednesday stayed the non-bailable warrants, which were issued against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and Swaraj India president Yogendra Yadav after they had failed to appear before it in a criminal defamation complaint filed in 2013.

A Delhi court on Wednesday stayed the non-bailable warrants, which were issued against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and Swaraj India president Yogendra Yadav after they had failed to appear before it in a criminal defamation complaint filed in 2013. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal passed the order after lawyers for the three leaders sought cancellation of the NBWs. The court said it will take up the main matter on April 29. Sharma, in his complaint, had alleged that in 2013 he was approached by volunteers of AAP who had asked him to contest the Delhi Assembly elections on a party ticket, saying Kejriwal was pleased with his social services. He filled up the application form to contest the polls after being told by Sisodia and Yadav that AAP’s Political Affairs Committee had decided to give him the ticket. However, it was later denied to him. On October 14, 2013, the complainant claimed that articles in leading newspapers carried “defamatory, unlawful and derogatory words used by the accused persons” which have lowered his reputation in the Bar and the society. Opposing the complaint, the AAP leaders had submitted that cancellation or allotment of an election ticket is the prerogative of the party and the complainant had not divulged correct information as to the cases pending against him. On the basis of the complaint, the trial court had earlier sought their presence before it in the matter. It had, however, granted bail to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Yadav after they had appeared before it in pursuance to summonses against them. The summonses were issued on the complaint under sections 499, 500 (defamation) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC, with the trial court saying there was prima facie material to summon the accused.

Delhi court stays non-bailable warrants against Arvind Kejriwal, others in defamation complaint

Ohio police officers were politically motivated when they arrested Stormy Daniels, the porn star who has described having an affair with President Donald Trump, at a strip club last year, the actress said in a lawsuit on Monday.

The Columbus vice unit officers who arrested Daniels on July 12, 2018, were registered Republicans as is the president, Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said in her lawsuit filed in federal court in Ohio.

"Defendant officers believed that Ms Clifford was damaging President Trump and they thereafter entered into a conspiracy to arrest her during her performance in Columbus in retaliation for the public statements she had made regarding (Trump)," the suit said.

The legal action against the officers could bring to light further details about the circumstances of Daniels arrest, which made headlines at the time.

Columbus police had accused Daniels of committing a misdemeanour sex offence while performing at the club Sirens by touching three customers who were undercover vice detectives.

The charge was dropped hours later. Daniels had committed no crime because she did not perform regularly at the club, as required under the law, a city attorney said at the time.

The Columbus Division of Police launched an internal investigation soon after the incident.

"The Columbus Division of Police internal affairs bureau continues its investigation, therefore it would be inappropriate for us to comment on this matter at this time," the division said in a statement about the lawsuit.

The division, in Ohio's state capital, was not named as a defendant in Daniels` lawsuit, which accused the officers of violating her civil rights.

A representative for the police union for the officers could not immediately be reached for comment.

Daniels sued Trump for defamation in March 2018, before her arrest, and was seeking release from a non-disclosure agreement she signed before the 2016 presidential election to remain silent about the affair she said she had with Trump.

Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels, saying she was paid to stop "false and extortionist accusations."

A federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed Daniels` defamation lawsuit last year.

Daniels` attorney, Michael Avenatti, has described her arrest as a politically motivated set-up since the day it happened.

"Here in America, unlike in Russia, we don`t arrest citizens for political purposes in order to silence them," Avenatti said in a statement on Monday.

Ohio police officers were politically motivated when they arrested Stormy Daniels, the porn star who has described having an affair with President Donald Trump, at a strip club last year, the actress said in a lawsuit on Monday.

Ohio police officers were politically motivated when they arrested Stormy Daniels, the porn star who has described having an affair with President Donald Trump, at a strip club last year, the actress said in a lawsuit on Monday. The Columbus vice unit officers who arrested Daniels on July 12, 2018, were registered Republicans as is the president, Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said in her lawsuit filed in federal court in Ohio. "Defendant officers believed that Ms Clifford was damaging President Trump and they thereafter entered into a conspiracy to arrest her during her performance in Columbus in retaliation for the public statements she had made regarding (Trump)," the suit said. The legal action against the officers could bring to light further details about the circumstances of Daniels arrest, which made headlines at the time. Columbus police had accused Daniels of committing a misdemeanour sex offence while performing at the club Sirens by touching three customers who were undercover vice detectives. The charge was dropped hours later. Daniels had committed no crime because she did not perform regularly at the club, as required under the law, a city attorney said at the time. The Columbus Division of Police launched an internal investigation soon after the incident. "The Columbus Division of Police internal affairs bureau continues its investigation, therefore it would be inappropriate for us to comment on this matter at this time," the division said in a statement about the lawsuit. The division, in Ohio's state capital, was not named as a defendant in Daniels` lawsuit, which accused the officers of violating her civil rights. A representative for the police union for the officers could not immediately be reached for comment. Daniels sued Trump for defamation in March 2018, before her arrest, and was seeking release from a non-disclosure agreement she signed before the 2016 presidential election to remain silent about the affair she said she had with Trump. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels, saying she was paid to stop "false and extortionist accusations." A federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed Daniels` defamation lawsuit last year. Daniels` attorney, Michael Avenatti, has described her arrest as a politically motivated set-up since the day it happened. "Here in America, unlike in Russia, we don`t arrest citizens for political purposes in order to silence them," Avenatti said in a statement on Monday.

Stormy Daniels sues over Ohio strip club arrest, calling it political

A woman lawmaker has slapped a Rs 5 billion defamation suit against Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan after being accused by her party of horse-trading during the Senate elections earlier this year.

Member of the former Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Bibi Fauzia filed a defamation suit with the Peshawar district and sessions judge yesterday, Dawn newspaper reported today.&nbsp

On April 18, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Khan had alleged that as many as 18 party lawmakers in the provincial assembly had sold their votes.

Amongst those accused of selling their votes was PTI lawmaker Fauzia. She had been elected to the provincial legislature on a reserved seat for women from Chitral.

The suit sought Rs 5 billion as damages from the PTI chief ahead of general elections in Pakistan on July 25.&nbsp

The case was assigned to additional district and sessions judge Shah Waliullah Hamid Hashmi, who fixed the preliminary hearing on June 27, it said.

She said she had followed the PTI's directions in the Senate elections by voting for the candidates named by it for general and reserved seats.

Fauzia said after the elections, the PTI chief began "uttering, spreading and resorting to publication, communication and circulation of maliciously false, baseless and unfounded oral statements and representation" against her.

She said Khan accused her of selling vote for money through electronic, print and social media.

The former lawmaker said she denied the charge by taking oath on the Holy Quran and replied to the show cause notice issued by the PTI Secretariat within the stipulated time.

She said she asked Khan of holding an 'open inquiry' into the matter, provide her with an opportunity of hearing, and confront her with all witnesses and material against her.

Fauzia however said the PTI chief failed to hold the inquiry and prove the horse-trading charge against her.

She claimed that the defamatory statement of Khan had damaged her political, social and family life besides destroying her personality.

"I served a legal notice on Imran Khan under Section 8 of the Defamation Ordinance asking him to tender an apology but he failed to respond to it," she said.&nbsp

A woman lawmaker has slapped a Rs 5 billion defamation suit against Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan after being accused by her party of horse-trading during the Senate elections earlier this year

A woman lawmaker has slapped a Rs 5 billion defamation suit against Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan after being accused by her party of horse-trading during the Senate elections earlier this year. Member of the former Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Bibi Fauzia filed a defamation suit with the Peshawar district and sessions judge yesterday, Dawn newspaper reported today. On April 18, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Khan had alleged that as many as 18 party lawmakers in the provincial assembly had sold their votes. Amongst those accused of selling their votes was PTI lawmaker Fauzia. She had been elected to the provincial legislature on a reserved seat for women from Chitral. The suit sought Rs 5 billion as damages from the PTI chief ahead of general elections in Pakistan on July 25. The case was assigned to additional district and sessions judge Shah Waliullah Hamid Hashmi, who fixed the preliminary hearing on June 27, it said. She said she had followed the PTI's directions in the Senate elections by voting for the candidates named by it for general and reserved seats. Fauzia said after the elections, the PTI chief began "uttering, spreading and resorting to publication, communication and circulation of maliciously false, baseless and unfounded oral statements and representation" against her. She said Khan accused her of selling vote for money through electronic, print and social media. The former lawmaker said she denied the charge by taking oath on the Holy Quran and replied to the show cause notice issued by the PTI Secretariat within the stipulated time. She said she asked Khan of holding an 'open inquiry' into the matter, provide her with an opportunity of hearing, and confront her with all witnesses and material against her. Fauzia however said the PTI chief failed to hold the inquiry and prove the horse-trading charge against her. She claimed that the defamatory statement of Khan had damaged her political, social and family life besides destroying her personality. "I served a legal notice on Imran Khan under Section 8 of the Defamation Ordinance asking him to tender an apology but he failed to respond to it," she said.

Former Pak woman lawmaker sues Imran Khan for defamation

Zee Media Corporation Limited (ZMC) has sent legal notice for defamation to online website Cobrapost over their so called sting- 'Operation 136'. The sting claims that many organisations are willing to take money to promote pro-Hindutva content. Strongly reacting to the sting done by 'journalist' Pushp Sharma, ZMCL has sent legal notice to not only him but also Cobrapost editor and founder Aniruddha Bahal.&nbsp;

In the notice, ZMCL has panned the sting operation as ' nothing but a planned conspiracy and set of self servicing false, fabricated and baseless piece of writing, which in itself is based on tampered, doctored and edited videos'. It says the sting 'Operation Rashtravaad' aired on Zee Hindusthan exposes the malafide intent of the journalist Push Sharma and it potrays the actual facts and conversations when he approached Zee officials with his alias of Acharya Atal.&nbsp;

Alongside Cobrapost, ZMCL has also sent notices to 'The Wire', 'The Quint' and 'Bhadas4Media' - for carrying out news related to the so called sting in their website.&nbsp;

In the notice to Cobrapost, Zee Group has asked for the articles to be removed, to be tendered an unconditional apology, an assurance that the articles won't be recirculated in any form and assurance that no defamatory content is spread against it. Failing which, ZMCL will be filing for both civil and criminal suits, claims the legal notice.&nbsp;

The notice sent to 'The Wire' is about two articles written by them post publication of Cobrapost sting. The notice say, "The deliberate manner in which you the Noticees have carried out the story in question by publishing the impugned articles makes it abundantly clear that you the Noticees have failed to act as per the principles of journalistic ethics and have only exhibited your biased and prejudiced mindset against our client for ulterior motives".&nbsp;

"It appears that the impugned articles containing defamatory contents have been electronically published by you the Noticees with the specific knowledge and intention to defame our client, by making totally malicious, false, incorrect and defamatory allegations against our client," the notice says. "As a neutral media house, you were expected to ponder upon the legitimacy of such alleged sting operations as claimed to be genuine by said Mr Pushp Sharma, who had a tainted track record".&nbsp;

The notice says that 'The Wire' merely reproduced allegations levelled by Cobrapost without due dilligence. ZMCL has asked for the articles to be pulled down and an unconditional apology failing which both civil and criminal defamation cases would be filed.&nbsp;

The notice to 'The Quint' mentions two articles which are related to the Cobrapost story. It says, " The false and baseless averments, suggestions and imputations are result of incorrect and grossly irresponsible reporting and aparent malafide'. &nbsp;It further says the fact that no mention of Zee's sting 'Operation Rashtravaad' is there on the Quint's website shows 'your agenda driven journalism and discloses your apparent mala-fide intentions'. The legal notice highlights the fact that The Quint didn't try to verify Cobrapost's claims and didn't took cognizance of the tainted past of the journalist Pushp Sharma. Quint too has been asked to retract the story and apologise in next 48 hours, failing which ZMCL will file cases of civil and criminal defamation.&nbsp;

The notice to Bhadas4Media is along similar lines. It highlights an article posted on the website. The notice says despite clarification given, the website chose to publish manipulative and slanderous Impugned articles. It also says the website was aware of Zee's sting and yet chose to glorify Cobrapost videos done by a man with questionable past. Bhadas4Media has been given 48 hours to unpublish the articles and give an apology, failing which civil and criminal defamation suits may be filed against them.&nbsp;

In 'Operation 136', Pushp Sharma masquerading as Acharya Atal reaches out to media houses and offers them money to run pro- Hindutva content. But look at the videos closely and they reek of convenient editing to tarnish the reputation of many mainstream media houses.

The cornerstone of any journalistic exercise is credibility. But what can be said of a so-called sting done by a journalist, who has very little to show for this basic virtue of journalism? Pushp Sharma who conducted this farcical Operation 136 to 'expose' media organisations has a controversial past, to say the least.

He has two criminal cases lodged against him that are ongoing. One of them is about carrying out alleged fake sting operations in 2009 and other about fabricating RTI responses from the AYUSH Ministry in 2016. For these, Sharma was arrested twice by Delhi Police, according to reports published in The Times of India and The Print. The trial is yet to start in both the cases.

According to media reports, Pushp Sharma and his accomplice Pankaj Kumar used to fake road accidents to trap unsuspecting policemen. Once the police officer arrived, they’d pretend to reach a compromise, following which they’d ask the police officer at the scene to hand them change for Rs 500 and Rs 1000. The officer, who didn’t know he was being filmed would hand over the change. This footage was used to later blackmail the police officer. However, according to reports, Sharma and Kumar soon ran out of luck when Delhi Police managed to set a similar trap against them. &nbsp;

On October 21, 2009, two police officers from Vasant Vihar PS were asked to report at an 'accident' scene near IIT Delhi. Pushp and his accomplice tried the same modus operandi with the two police officers - Head Constable (HC) Rishi Rose and Ct. Satish. Rose gave Pushp Sharma change for Rs 500 to settle the matter with 'victim' Kumar. This video was recorded, and later Pushp Sharma called up HC Rose demanding money. Officer Rose then brought the matter to the notice of his seniors who promptly busted the racket on 17 November 2009, when Sharma was caught receiving Rs 10,000 from constable Rose. The case, according to a report in the Times of India, is currently pending trial at Delhi’s Patiala House Court. Cut to 2016, and Pushp Sharma again attracted controversy with his allegation that the AYUSH ministry was discriminating against Muslims while hiring yoga trainers. He cited an RTI reply in his report which was fake according to the Ministry. The AYUSH ministry lodged a formal complaint against Pushp Sharma for filing a 'fake' RTI and the journalist was booked on multiple charges.

The other websites Zee Media has sent notices to include The Wire, The Quint, and Bhadas4Media

Zee Media Corporation Limited (ZMC) has sent legal notice for defamation to online website Cobrapost over their so called sting- 'Operation 136'. The sting claims that many organisations are willing to take money to promote pro-Hindutva content. Strongly reacting to the sting done by 'journalist' Pushp Sharma, ZMCL has sent legal notice to not only him but also Cobrapost editor and founder Aniruddha Bahal. In the notice, ZMCL has panned the sting operation as ' nothing but a planned conspiracy and set of self servicing false, fabricated and baseless piece of writing, which in itself is based on tampered, doctored and edited videos'. It says the sting 'Operation Rashtravaad' aired on Zee Hindusthan exposes the malafide intent of the journalist Push Sharma and it potrays the actual facts and conversations when he approached Zee officials with his alias of Acharya Atal. Alongside Cobrapost, ZMCL has also sent notices to 'The Wire', 'The Quint' and 'Bhadas4Media' - for carrying out news related to the so called sting in their website. In the notice to Cobrapost, Zee Group has asked for the articles to be removed, to be tendered an unconditional apology, an assurance that the articles won't be recirculated in any form and assurance that no defamatory content is spread against it. Failing which, ZMCL will be filing for both civil and criminal suits, claims the legal notice. The notice sent to 'The Wire' is about two articles written by them post publication of Cobrapost sting. The notice say, "The deliberate manner in which you the Noticees have carried out the story in question by publishing the impugned articles makes it abundantly clear that you the Noticees have failed to act as per the principles of journalistic ethics and have only exhibited your biased and prejudiced mindset against our client for ulterior motives". "It appears that the impugned articles containing defamatory contents have been electronically published by you the Noticees with the specific knowledge and intention to defame our client, by making totally malicious, false, incorrect and defamatory allegations against our client," the notice says. "As a neutral media house, you were expected to ponder upon the legitimacy of such alleged sting operations as claimed to be genuine by said Mr Pushp Sharma, who had a tainted track record". The notice says that 'The Wire' merely reproduced allegations levelled by Cobrapost without due dilligence. ZMCL has asked for the articles to be pulled down and an unconditional apology failing which both civil and criminal defamation cases would be filed. The notice to 'The Quint' mentions two articles which are related to the Cobrapost story. It says, " The false and baseless averments, suggestions and imputations are result of incorrect and grossly irresponsible reporting and aparent malafide'. It further says the fact that no mention of Zee's sting 'Operation Rashtravaad' is there on the Quint's website shows 'your agenda driven journalism and discloses your apparent mala-fide intentions'. The legal notice highlights the fact that The Quint didn't try to verify Cobrapost's claims and didn't took cognizance of the tainted past of the journalist Pushp Sharma. Quint too has been asked to retract the story and apologise in next 48 hours, failing which ZMCL will file cases of civil and criminal defamation. The notice to Bhadas4Media is along similar lines. It highlights an article posted on the website. The notice says despite clarification given, the website chose to publish manipulative and slanderous Impugned articles. It also says the website was aware of Zee's sting and yet chose to glorify Cobrapost videos done by a man with questionable past. Bhadas4Media has been given 48 hours to unpublish the articles and give an apology, failing which civil and criminal defamation suits may be filed against them. In 'Operation 136', Pushp Sharma masquerading as Acharya Atal reaches out to media houses and offers them money to run pro- Hindutva content. But look at the videos closely and they reek of convenient editing to tarnish the reputation of many mainstream media houses. The cornerstone of any journalistic exercise is credibility. But what can be said of a so-called sting done by a journalist, who has very little to show for this basic virtue of journalism? Pushp Sharma who conducted this farcical Operation 136 to 'expose' media organisations has a controversial past, to say the least. He has two criminal cases lodged against him that are ongoing. One of them is about carrying out alleged fake sting operations in 2009 and other about fabricating RTI responses from the AYUSH Ministry in 2016. For these, Sharma was arrested twice by Delhi Police, according to reports published in The Times of India and The Print. The trial is yet to start in both the cases. According to media reports, Pushp Sharma and his accomplice Pankaj Kumar used to fake road accidents to trap unsuspecting policemen. Once the police officer arrived, they’d pretend to reach a compromise, following which they’d ask the police officer at the scene to hand them change for Rs 500 and Rs 1000. The officer, who didn’t know he was being filmed would hand over the change. This footage was used to later blackmail the police officer. However, according to reports, Sharma and Kumar soon ran out of luck when Delhi Police managed to set a similar trap against them. On October 21, 2009, two police officers from Vasant Vihar PS were asked to report at an 'accident' scene near IIT Delhi. Pushp and his accomplice tried the same modus operandi with the two police officers - Head Constable (HC) Rishi Rose and Ct. Satish. Rose gave Pushp Sharma change for Rs 500 to settle the matter with 'victim' Kumar. This video was recorded, and later Pushp Sharma called up HC Rose demanding money. Officer Rose then brought the matter to the notice of his seniors who promptly busted the racket on 17 November 2009, when Sharma was caught receiving Rs 10,000 from constable Rose. The case, according to a report in the Times of India, is currently pending trial at Delhi’s Patiala House Court. Cut to 2016, and Pushp Sharma again attracted controversy with his allegation that the AYUSH ministry was discriminating against Muslims while hiring yoga trainers. He cited an RTI reply in his report which was fake according to the Ministry. The AYUSH ministry lodged a formal complaint against Pushp Sharma for filing a 'fake' RTI and the journalist was booked on multiple charges.

Zee Media sends legal notice of defamation to Cobrapost, 3 other news websites

American actress Ashley Judd on Monday filed a defamation and sexual harassment lawsuit against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, alleging that he damaged her career after she refused his sexual advances.

The civil lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in Santa Monica, alleges that Weinstein caused Judd to lose a part in 1998 in the film "The Lord of the Rings" by making "baseless smears" against her.

The lawsuit, reviewed by Reuters, alleges that Weinstein "was retaliating against Ms. Judd for rejecting his sexual demands approximately one year earlier, when he cornered her in a hotel room under the guise of discussing business."&nbsp

"Weinstein used his power in the entertainment industry to damage Ms. Judd’s reputation and limit her ability to find work," the lawsuit added.

Weinstein has denied non-consensual sex with anyone. His spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.

Judd was one of the first women in October 2017 to make an on the record allegation of sexual misconduct against Weinstein, which soon afterward evolved into the social media #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault. The Oscar-winning producer has since been accused of sexual impropriety by more than 70 women.

Judd, a leading member of the "Time's Up" movement against sexual harassment in the workplace, is seeking unspecified damages and a jury trial.

Judd's representative did not immediately return a call for comment.

The actress said in a statement to the New York Times that any financial recuperation from the lawsuit would be donated to Time's Up "so that women and men in all professions may have legal redress for sexual harassment, economic retaliation and damage to their careers."&nbsp

The civil lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in Santa Monica, alleges that Weinstein caused Judd to lose a part in 1998 in the film 'The Lord of the Rings' by making 'baseless smears' against her

American actress Ashley Judd on Monday filed a defamation and sexual harassment lawsuit against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, alleging that he damaged her career after she refused his sexual advances. The civil lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in Santa Monica, alleges that Weinstein caused Judd to lose a part in 1998 in the film "The Lord of the Rings" by making "baseless smears" against her. The lawsuit, reviewed by Reuters, alleges that Weinstein "was retaliating against Ms. Judd for rejecting his sexual demands approximately one year earlier, when he cornered her in a hotel room under the guise of discussing business." "Weinstein used his power in the entertainment industry to damage Ms. Judd’s reputation and limit her ability to find work," the lawsuit added. Weinstein has denied non-consensual sex with anyone. His spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday. Judd was one of the first women in October 2017 to make an on the record allegation of sexual misconduct against Weinstein, which soon afterward evolved into the social media #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault. The Oscar-winning producer has since been accused of sexual impropriety by more than 70 women. Judd, a leading member of the "Time's Up" movement against sexual harassment in the workplace, is seeking unspecified damages and a jury trial. Judd's representative did not immediately return a call for comment. The actress said in a statement to the New York Times that any financial recuperation from the lawsuit would be donated to Time's Up "so that women and men in all professions may have legal redress for sexual harassment, economic retaliation and damage to their careers."

American actress Ashley Judd sues Harvey Weinstein for defamation, sexual harassment

The Delhi High Court today asked Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal why cannot he apologise to a constable for allegedly using the slang 'thulla' for policemen, when he has been seeking pardon from others like Finance Minister Arun Jaitley.

Justice Anu Malhotra said if Kejriwal is apologising to others for his remarks, why can't he do the same to the police officials and settle the matter.

His counsel said he would seek instructions from the chief minister on this, following which the court listed the matter for further hearing on May 29.

The court was hearing a plea by Kejriwal seeking quashing of a trial court order summoning him in a criminal defamation complaint filed by a constable.

During the past few weeks, Kejriwal has tendered apology to Jaitley, Bikram Majithia and others for his comments against them.

The court had earlier stayed the trial court order summoning Kejriwal in the defamation complaint filed by Delhi Police constable Anil Kumar Taneja, who had sought dismissal of his petition seeking stay and quashing of the trial court order summoning him.&nbsp;

Opposing the Chief Minister's plea, the constable in his reply, filed through advocate L N Rao, had alleged that Kejriwal had "crossed all limits of decency" by using the insulting word 'thulla' for a policeman in an interview to a news channel.

Taneja, who had filed the criminal defamation complaint filed on July 23, 2015, had claimed that by using the slang, Kejriwal "has intentionally insulted entire Delhi Police force as a whole and caused unnecessary provocation to the police personnel in Delhi".

The high court in July last had asked Kejriwal to explain the meaning of word 'thulla' he had allegedly used against the policemen while staying the trial court's order.

He word used by Kejriwal is a Hindi word and the high court wanted to know its meaning as it does not exist in the dictionary.

Earlier, Kejriwal's counsel had told the court that the word 'Thulla' was not used against all policemen but against those indulging in wrong practices.&nbsp;

Justice Anu Malhotra said if Kejriwal is apologising to others for his remarks, why can't he do the same to the police officials and settle the matter

The Delhi High Court today asked Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal why cannot he apologise to a constable for allegedly using the slang 'thulla' for policemen, when he has been seeking pardon from others like Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. Justice Anu Malhotra said if Kejriwal is apologising to others for his remarks, why can't he do the same to the police officials and settle the matter. His counsel said he would seek instructions from the chief minister on this, following which the court listed the matter for further hearing on May 29. The court was hearing a plea by Kejriwal seeking quashing of a trial court order summoning him in a criminal defamation complaint filed by a constable. During the past few weeks, Kejriwal has tendered apology to Jaitley, Bikram Majithia and others for his comments against them. The court had earlier stayed the trial court order summoning Kejriwal in the defamation complaint filed by Delhi Police constable Anil Kumar Taneja, who had sought dismissal of his petition seeking stay and quashing of the trial court order summoning him. Opposing the Chief Minister's plea, the constable in his reply, filed through advocate L N Rao, had alleged that Kejriwal had "crossed all limits of decency" by using the insulting word 'thulla' for a policeman in an interview to a news channel. Taneja, who had filed the criminal defamation complaint filed on July 23, 2015, had claimed that by using the slang, Kejriwal "has intentionally insulted entire Delhi Police force as a whole and caused unnecessary provocation to the police personnel in Delhi". The high court in July last had asked Kejriwal to explain the meaning of word 'thulla' he had allegedly used against the policemen while staying the trial court's order. He word used by Kejriwal is a Hindi word and the high court wanted to know its meaning as it does not exist in the dictionary. Earlier, Kejriwal's counsel had told the court that the word 'Thulla' was not used against all policemen but against those indulging in wrong practices.

High Court asks Arvind Kejriwal why can't he apologise for 'thulla' remark

A court in Ahmedabad has issued summons to The Wire news portal on a criminal defamation petition filed by the Adani Group for an article published by it last December. Summonses were issued on Tuesday to seven respondents in the case, including the author of the article as well as five editors and the not-for-profit organisation that publishes The Wire.&nbsp

They have been asked by metropolitan magistrate S K Gadhavi to respond to the summonses on April 27, when the court will next hear the case.

In its petition, filed under sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, alleging criminal defamation, the Adani Group said that the article in question was published on December 11, 2017 “with the sole intention of harming the reputation of the complainant (Adani Power Maharashtra Limited)”.

The article is intended to create “cheap publicity”, smacks of “distaste, prejudice and malice against the complainant”, and is a result of a “well-thought-out conspiracy” to tarnish the image.

Summonses were issued on Tuesday to seven respondents in the case, including the author of the article as well as five editors and the not-for-profit organisation that publishes The Wire.

A court in Ahmedabad has issued summons to The Wire news portal on a criminal defamation petition filed by the Adani Group for an article published by it last December. Summonses were issued on Tuesday to seven respondents in the case, including the author of the article as well as five editors and the not-for-profit organisation that publishes The Wire. They have been asked by metropolitan magistrate S K Gadhavi to respond to the summonses on April 27, when the court will next hear the case. In its petition, filed under sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, alleging criminal defamation, the Adani Group said that the article in question was published on December 11, 2017 “with the sole intention of harming the reputation of the complainant (Adani Power Maharashtra Limited)”. The article is intended to create “cheap publicity”, smacks of “distaste, prejudice and malice against the complainant”, and is a result of a “well-thought-out conspiracy” to tarnish the image.

Court issues summons to The Wire in defamation case filed by Adani Group

Aam Aadmi Party chief and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has written to Union Minister Nitin Gadkari expressing regret for &#39;&#39;unverified allegations&quot; made against him.&nbsp;

Kejriwal, in his letter, wrote that he has nothing against Gadkari and that he regrets the incident.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
AAP Chief A Kejriwal writes to Union Minister Nitin Gadkari expressing regret for unverified allegations made against him. In the letter, he wrote,&quot;I have nothing personal against you. I regret the same. Let us put the incident behind us&amp;bring the court proceedings to a closure.&quot;
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/975656624680591360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&quot;I have nothing personal against you. I regret the same. Let us put the incident behind us and bring the court proceedings to a closure,&quot; his letter read.

Kejriwal and Gadkari have also filed a joint application in Delhi&#39;s Patiala House Court to withdraw the defamation case.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and Union minister Nitin Gadkari filed a joint application for seeking of withdrawn of the defamation case in Delhi&#39;s Patiala House Court.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/975656817178173440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Nitin Gadkari had filed a criminal defamation complaint against the Arvind Kejriwal alleging that Kejriwal had defamed him by including his name in the party&#39;s list of &quot;India&#39;s most corrupt&quot;.&nbsp;

Gadkari later told the court that he will resolve the matter if Kejriwal agrees to apologise and withdraws his statement.&nbsp;

Kejriwal and Gadkari also filed a joint application in Delhi's Patiala House Court to withdraw the defamation case

Aam Aadmi Party chief and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has written to Union Minister Nitin Gadkari expressing regret for ''unverified allegations" made against him. Kejriwal, in his letter, wrote that he has nothing against Gadkari and that he regrets the incident. AAP Chief A Kejriwal writes to Union Minister Nitin Gadkari expressing regret for unverified allegations made against him. In the letter, he wrote,"I have nothing personal against you. I regret the same. Let us put the incident behind us&bring the court proceedings to a closure." — ANI (@ANI) March 19, 2018 × "I have nothing personal against you. I regret the same. Let us put the incident behind us and bring the court proceedings to a closure," his letter read. Kejriwal and Gadkari have also filed a joint application in Delhi's Patiala House Court to withdraw the defamation case. Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and Union minister Nitin Gadkari filed a joint application for seeking of withdrawn of the defamation case in Delhi's Patiala House Court. — ANI (@ANI) March 19, 2018 × Nitin Gadkari had filed a criminal defamation complaint against the Arvind Kejriwal alleging that Kejriwal had defamed him by including his name in the party's list of "India's most corrupt". Gadkari later told the court that he will resolve the matter if Kejriwal agrees to apologise and withdraws his statement.

Arvind Kejriwal writes to Nitin Gadkari regretting 'unverified allegations'

An Australian publisher has shelved plans to release a book detailing alleged Chinese interference in the country over fears of legal attacks by Beijing, the author said Monday.

Academic Clive Hamilton said his book &quot;Silent Invasion&quot; was pulled by publisher Allen &amp; Unwin last week just as it was about to go to press.

He told AFP that Allen &amp; Unwin had cited &quot;serious...threats&quot; of possible legal action from Beijing should the company release the work.

The book, which was to be his ninth with the publishing house, included the names of individuals and organisations trying to influence Australian society and politics in China&#39;s interests, Hamilton said.

He described it as &quot;very factual, very deeply researched&quot;.

In an email exchange with Allen &amp; Unwin which Hamilton shared with AFP, the publisher said there was a &quot;very high chance&quot; the company could be sued for defamation if the book was published.

&quot;If pursued with malice, this kind of vexatious legal action... could result in the book being withdrawn from sale, and both you and Allen &amp; Unwin being tied up in expensive legal action for months on end or longer,&quot; it said.

Hamilton, a prominent author and professor of ethics and Charles Sturt University, called the decision &quot;a watershed moment in Australia, when Beijing can suppress free speech&quot;.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said Monday that he was not aware of the situation involving the pulled publication.

&quot;China has been developing exchanges and cooperation in various areas with Australia based on mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit,&quot; spokesman Geng Shuang said during a regular press briefing.

&quot;We hope relevant parties can put this in perspective and do more things that are conducive to the sound and steady development of China-Australia relations.&quot;

The incident came amid heightened anxieties in Australia over the extent of Beijing&#39;s soft power.

Canberra in June ordered an inquiry into espionage laws and foreign government activities following a media investigation into large political donations by two Chinese billionaires with reported links to China&#39;s Communist Party.

The probe, by the ABC and Fairfax Media, said intelligence agencies had major concerns that Beijing was interfering in Australian institutions and using the political donations system to gain access.

Last month Foreign Minister Julie Bishop warned Chinese students in Australia they should abide by the nation&#39;s values of &quot;openness and upholding freedom of speech&quot;.

Hamilton said Allen &amp; Unwin had suggested delaying his book&#39;s publication until court cases brought by Beijing against other Australian media were settled.

But he rejected letting his manuscript &quot;sit on a shelf gathering dust for a year or more&quot; and insisted he would find another publisher for the work.

Other Western publishers have reported being pressured by Chinese authorities over content inside China.

In August, another foreign publisher, Britain&#39;s Cambridge University Press, temporarily removed 300 academic articles covering sensitive Chinese political issues from a journal&#39;s website in China at the request of an import agency, only to revive the texts in response to public outcry.

That same month, US-based Association for Asian Studies said it had received a similar request from China&#39;s publications administration, but it did not comply.

In a statement to several media outlets, global publisher Springer Nature said this month that it has blocked access within mainland China to &quot;a small percentage of our content (less than one percent) in compliance with local distribution laws&quot;.

The censored articles, covering topics such as Tibet and the Tiananmen Square protests, are still viewable outside mainland China.

An Australian publisher has shelved plans to release a book detailing alleged Chinese interference in the country over fears of legal attacks by Beijing, the author said Monday.

An Australian publisher has shelved plans to release a book detailing alleged Chinese interference in the country over fears of legal attacks by Beijing, the author said Monday. Academic Clive Hamilton said his book "Silent Invasion" was pulled by publisher Allen & Unwin last week just as it was about to go to press. He told AFP that Allen & Unwin had cited "serious...threats" of possible legal action from Beijing should the company release the work. The book, which was to be his ninth with the publishing house, included the names of individuals and organisations trying to influence Australian society and politics in China's interests, Hamilton said. He described it as "very factual, very deeply researched". In an email exchange with Allen & Unwin which Hamilton shared with AFP, the publisher said there was a "very high chance" the company could be sued for defamation if the book was published. "If pursued with malice, this kind of vexatious legal action... could result in the book being withdrawn from sale, and both you and Allen & Unwin being tied up in expensive legal action for months on end or longer," it said. Hamilton, a prominent author and professor of ethics and Charles Sturt University, called the decision "a watershed moment in Australia, when Beijing can suppress free speech". A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said Monday that he was not aware of the situation involving the pulled publication. "China has been developing exchanges and cooperation in various areas with Australia based on mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit," spokesman Geng Shuang said during a regular press briefing. "We hope relevant parties can put this in perspective and do more things that are conducive to the sound and steady development of China-Australia relations." The incident came amid heightened anxieties in Australia over the extent of Beijing's soft power. Canberra in June ordered an inquiry into espionage laws and foreign government activities following a media investigation into large political donations by two Chinese billionaires with reported links to China's Communist Party. The probe, by the ABC and Fairfax Media, said intelligence agencies had major concerns that Beijing was interfering in Australian institutions and using the political donations system to gain access. Last month Foreign Minister Julie Bishop warned Chinese students in Australia they should abide by the nation's values of "openness and upholding freedom of speech". Hamilton said Allen & Unwin had suggested delaying his book's publication until court cases brought by Beijing against other Australian media were settled. But he rejected letting his manuscript "sit on a shelf gathering dust for a year or more" and insisted he would find another publisher for the work. Other Western publishers have reported being pressured by Chinese authorities over content inside China. In August, another foreign publisher, Britain's Cambridge University Press, temporarily removed 300 academic articles covering sensitive Chinese political issues from a journal's website in China at the request of an import agency, only to revive the texts in response to public outcry. That same month, US-based Association for Asian Studies said it had received a similar request from China's publications administration, but it did not comply. In a statement to several media outlets, global publisher Springer Nature said this month that it has blocked access within mainland China to "a small percentage of our content (less than one percent) in compliance with local distribution laws". The censored articles, covering topics such as Tibet and the Tiananmen Square protests, are still viewable outside mainland China.

Australian academic's book pulled over China backlash fears

Australian comedian Rebel Wilson won A$4.6 million ($3.7 million) in damages. This was after a global magazine publisher defamed her in a string of articles which resulted in the comedian losing out on Hollywood movie roles.

The Supreme Court of Victoria instructed Bauer Media, the Europe-based parent company of the magazine, to pay Wilson, A$650,000 in general damages, including aggravated damages, plus A$3,917,472 in special damages, the highest ever for a libel case in Australia.

The Sydney born Wilson is best known for her roles in the Pitch Perfect films.

&quot;The damage suffered by Miss Wilson warrants a substantial damages award to vindicate her and nail the lie,&quot; Justice John Dixon said, reading out a summary of his judgement.

He added that aggravated penalties were prevalent due to Bauer Media&#39;s &quot;unprecedented&quot; global reach and its decision to run a series of articles which claimed Wilson had lied about her age, real name and few childhood events, even though the media house had the knowledge that the allegations were false.

&quot;The allegations were based on information from a source who required payment and anonymity and whom the editor considered had an axe to grind,&quot; Dixon said.

The Justice also said Bauer Media had &quot;kept the story alive for days&quot; for its own gains, knowing the claims in the Woman&#39;s Day magazine would be picked up by other entertainment media houses worldwide. The entire episode led to Wilson missing out on a number of film roles.

The compensation was based on the judge&#39;s assessment that the celebrity lost out on at least three lead or co-lead roles, each worth at least A$6.2 million ($5 million), ascribing 20 per cent of the lost earnings to Bauer Media&#39;s articles.

Wilson expressed her gratefulness on social media as she received the judgement in the middle of the night in Britain.

&quot;Today was the end of a long and hard court battle against Bauer Media who viciously tried to take me down with a series of false articles,&quot; she said.

&quot;To me though, this case wasn&#39;t about the money,&quot; she said. adding she plans to give away the money to help some Australian charities and the Australian film industry.

Bauer Media said in a statement on its website it was considering the judgement.

The previous record for damages in a defamation case in Australia was A$2.3 million, two legal experts said.

&quot;Most observers of the case are surprised at the quantum of the judgement, and I would expect that it would be appealed,&quot; said Peter Bartlett, a partner at law firm Minter Ellison.

Wilson expressed her gratefulness on social media as she received the judgment in the middle of the night in Britain

Australian comedian Rebel Wilson won A$4.6 million ($3.7 million) in damages. This was after a global magazine publisher defamed her in a string of articles which resulted in the comedian losing out on Hollywood movie roles. The Supreme Court of Victoria instructed Bauer Media, the Europe-based parent company of the magazine, to pay Wilson, A$650,000 in general damages, including aggravated damages, plus A$3,917,472 in special damages, the highest ever for a libel case in Australia. The Sydney born Wilson is best known for her roles in the Pitch Perfect films. "The damage suffered by Miss Wilson warrants a substantial damages award to vindicate her and nail the lie," Justice John Dixon said, reading out a summary of his judgement. He added that aggravated penalties were prevalent due to Bauer Media's "unprecedented" global reach and its decision to run a series of articles which claimed Wilson had lied about her age, real name and few childhood events, even though the media house had the knowledge that the allegations were false. "The allegations were based on information from a source who required payment and anonymity and whom the editor considered had an axe to grind," Dixon said. The Justice also said Bauer Media had "kept the story alive for days" for its own gains, knowing the claims in the Woman's Day magazine would be picked up by other entertainment media houses worldwide. The entire episode led to Wilson missing out on a number of film roles. The compensation was based on the judge's assessment that the celebrity lost out on at least three lead or co-lead roles, each worth at least A$6.2 million ($5 million), ascribing 20 per cent of the lost earnings to Bauer Media's articles. Wilson expressed her gratefulness on social media as she received the judgement in the middle of the night in Britain. "Today was the end of a long and hard court battle against Bauer Media who viciously tried to take me down with a series of false articles," she said. "To me though, this case wasn't about the money," she said. adding she plans to give away the money to help some Australian charities and the Australian film industry. Bauer Media said in a statement on its website it was considering the judgement. The previous record for damages in a defamation case in Australia was A$2.3 million, two legal experts said. "Most observers of the case are surprised at the quantum of the judgement, and I would expect that it would be appealed," said Peter Bartlett, a partner at law firm Minter Ellison.

Australian comedian Rebel Wilson wins $3.7 million as compensation for damages due to defamation

A Thai man was jailed for 35 years on Friday for Facebook posts deemed insulting to the royal family, a watchdog said, in one of the harshest sentences handed down for a crime that insulates Thailand&#39;s ultra-rich monarchy from criticism.

A Bangkok military court convicted the 34-year-old of ten counts of lese majeste for posting photos and videos of the royal family on a Facebook account that purported to belong to a different user.

Wichai, whose last name was withheld to protect his relatives from ostracisation, was accused of using the account to slander a former friend, said iLaw, a group that tracks royal defamation cases.

&quot;The court punished him with seven years per count. Altogether he was given 70 years, but it was reduced in half because he confessed,&quot; said Yingcheep Atchanont from iLaw.&nbsp;

Lese majeste cases are routinely shrouded in secrecy, with media forced to heavily self-censor the details to avoid violating the broadly interpreted law.

Reporters were barred from entering the military court where Wichai&#39;s verdict was read.

Later on Friday, a criminal court sentenced another lese majeste suspect to 2.5 years in jail for uploading an audio clip from an underground political radio show that was deemed insulting to the monarchy.

Use of the draconian law has surged under a royalist junta that grabbed power in 2014, with more than 100 people charged since the coup.&nbsp;Prosecutions have continued under Thailand&#39;s new king Maha Vajiralongkorn, who took the throne in late 2016 after the death of his deeply revered father.&nbsp;

Observers have been closely watching how the new king approaches the controversial law, which effectively blocks scrutiny of Thailand&#39;s opaque and powerful monarchy.&nbsp;

According to iLaw, Wichai initially denied the charges but later confessed after waiting for more than a year in jail for the court proceedings to begin.&nbsp;

Lese majeste suspects are rarely acquitted or granted bail.&nbsp;The United Nations&#39; rights body has warned that Thailand&#39;s widespread use of the law &#39;may constitute crimes against humanity&#39;.

(AFP)

Wichai was punished with one of the harshest sentences - 35 year jail time - for posting photos and videos of the royal family on Facebook

A Thai man was jailed for 35 years on Friday for Facebook posts deemed insulting to the royal family, a watchdog said, in one of the harshest sentences handed down for a crime that insulates Thailand's ultra-rich monarchy from criticism. A Bangkok military court convicted the 34-year-old of ten counts of lese majeste for posting photos and videos of the royal family on a Facebook account that purported to belong to a different user. Wichai, whose last name was withheld to protect his relatives from ostracisation, was accused of using the account to slander a former friend, said iLaw, a group that tracks royal defamation cases. "The court punished him with seven years per count. Altogether he was given 70 years, but it was reduced in half because he confessed," said Yingcheep Atchanont from iLaw. Lese majeste cases are routinely shrouded in secrecy, with media forced to heavily self-censor the details to avoid violating the broadly interpreted law. Reporters were barred from entering the military court where Wichai's verdict was read. Later on Friday, a criminal court sentenced another lese majeste suspect to 2.5 years in jail for uploading an audio clip from an underground political radio show that was deemed insulting to the monarchy. Use of the draconian law has surged under a royalist junta that grabbed power in 2014, with more than 100 people charged since the coup. Prosecutions have continued under Thailand's new king Maha Vajiralongkorn, who took the throne in late 2016 after the death of his deeply revered father. Observers have been closely watching how the new king approaches the controversial law, which effectively blocks scrutiny of Thailand's opaque and powerful monarchy. According to iLaw, Wichai initially denied the charges but later confessed after waiting for more than a year in jail for the court proceedings to begin. Lese majeste suspects are rarely acquitted or granted bail. The United Nations' rights body has warned that Thailand's widespread use of the law 'may constitute crimes against humanity'. (AFP)

Thai man jailed for defaming royals on Facebook

Western nations warned Monday that a new defamation bill could severely undermine freedom of speech in the Maldives, as they accused President Abdulla Yameen of eroding democracy on the honeymoon islands. 
 
The United States led calls on Yameen to withdraw the bill that is being discussed in parliament this week, saying it gave authorities powers to impose severe penalties on people seeking to exercise basic human rights. &quot;The defamation bill that has been introduced in the Maldivian parliament risks being, if passed, a serious setback for freedom of speech in the Maldives,&quot; the US embassy said in a statement. 
 
&quot;It will allow severe penalties to be imposed on those who wish to exercise their democratic rights and freedoms, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.&quot; 
 
The strongly-worded missive was supported by the Sri Lanka-based diplomatic missions of Britain, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and the European Union, which have responsibility for the Maldives. The statement also expressed &quot;concern about the erosion of fundamental freedoms and the institutions of democracy, including freedom of assembly and press&quot; under Yameen, who came to power in 2013. 
 
&quot;We urge President Yameen to reverse the backsliding of the past many months and return to the path of democracy, transparency, and rule of law -&ndash; for the well-being and prosperity of all of the people in the Maldives,&quot; it added. 
 
Maldivian police arrested 16 journalists in April for protesting against the bill, which seeks to criminalise defamation and proposes heavy fines and jail terms for offenders. 
 
Independent media institutions fear it could be used to stifle freedom of speech on the islands, whose pristine seas and white sandy beaches are a popular draw for wealthy Western tourists. The Indian Ocean archipelago adopted multiparty democracy in 2008 after decades of autocratic rule. 
 
But it has been gripped by turmoil since its first democratically-elected leader Mohamed Nasheed was toppled in 2012. Nasheed, whose jailing last year on terror charges has been widely criticised by the West, has since secured political asylum in Britain after travelling there for medical treatment while on prison leave. 
 
(AFP)

It will allow severe penalties to be imposed on those who wish to exercise their democratic rights and freedoms: US embassy

Western nations warned Monday that a new defamation bill could severely undermine freedom of speech in the Maldives, as they accused President Abdulla Yameen of eroding democracy on the honeymoon islands. The United States led calls on Yameen to withdraw the bill that is being discussed in parliament this week, saying it gave authorities powers to impose severe penalties on people seeking to exercise basic human rights. "The defamation bill that has been introduced in the Maldivian parliament risks being, if passed, a serious setback for freedom of speech in the Maldives," the US embassy said in a statement. "It will allow severe penalties to be imposed on those who wish to exercise their democratic rights and freedoms, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." The strongly-worded missive was supported by the Sri Lanka-based diplomatic missions of Britain, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and the European Union, which have responsibility for the Maldives. The statement also expressed "concern about the erosion of fundamental freedoms and the institutions of democracy, including freedom of assembly and press" under Yameen, who came to power in 2013. "We urge President Yameen to reverse the backsliding of the past many months and return to the path of democracy, transparency, and rule of law -– for the well-being and prosperity of all of the people in the Maldives," it added. Maldivian police arrested 16 journalists in April for protesting against the bill, which seeks to criminalise defamation and proposes heavy fines and jail terms for offenders. Independent media institutions fear it could be used to stifle freedom of speech on the islands, whose pristine seas and white sandy beaches are a popular draw for wealthy Western tourists. The Indian Ocean archipelago adopted multiparty democracy in 2008 after decades of autocratic rule. But it has been gripped by turmoil since its first democratically-elected leader Mohamed Nasheed was toppled in 2012. Nasheed, whose jailing last year on terror charges has been widely criticised by the West, has since secured political asylum in Britain after travelling there for medical treatment while on prison leave. (AFP)

Proposed Maldives defamation bill threatens freedom of speech, critics warn

US actor John Malkovich took French daily Le Monde and two of its journalists to court on Friday for defamation over a report alleging that he held a secret Swiss bank account. 
 
Dangerous Liaisons star Malkovich is suing the paper over two articles published in February about the tax evasion scheme run by British banking giant HSBC out of its Swiss affiliate. 
 
Malkovich, 62, was among several celebrities listed by Le Monde among the &quot;elite tax evaders&quot; to have had a secret Swiss account between 2005 and 2007 - a claim Malkovich has rejected. 
 
&quot;Not only did John Malkovich not defraud tax authorities&quot;, he &quot;never had an account with HSBC&quot;, Julia Minkowski, one of his lawyers, told a Paris court. 
 
The only Swiss account he ever had was a securities portfolio with a bank that was later bought by HSBC, Minkowski added. 
 
The actor had declared that account to US tax authorities before closing it on November 30, 1999, a month before the creation of HSBC&#39;s Swiss private banking arm, she said. 
 
Herve Temime, another of the actor&#39;s lawyers, said Le Monde&#39;s linking of the actor to the Swissleaks revelations was &quot;shameful&quot;, calling his client a &quot;man of great integrity&quot;. 
 
Prosecutor Annabelle Philippe rapped the two journalists who authored the report, and who were absent from the proceedings, for not having the &quot;decency to come and recognise the lack of professionalism of their investigation&quot;. 
 
Le Monde&#39;s lawyer Christophe Bigot, for his part, accused Malkovich of &quot;creating a fuss&quot; despite having had an account &quot;in a discreet little bank in a country (that was) uncooperative&quot; with other countries on tax matters. 
 
The court will rule on the case in October. 
 
(AFP)

The Hollywood actor took two journalists to court for alleging he held a secret Swiss bank account

US actor John Malkovich took French daily Le Monde and two of its journalists to court on Friday for defamation over a report alleging that he held a secret Swiss bank account. Dangerous Liaisons star Malkovich is suing the paper over two articles published in February about the tax evasion scheme run by British banking giant HSBC out of its Swiss affiliate. Malkovich, 62, was among several celebrities listed by Le Monde among the "elite tax evaders" to have had a secret Swiss account between 2005 and 2007 - a claim Malkovich has rejected. "Not only did John Malkovich not defraud tax authorities", he "never had an account with HSBC", Julia Minkowski, one of his lawyers, told a Paris court. The only Swiss account he ever had was a securities portfolio with a bank that was later bought by HSBC, Minkowski added. The actor had declared that account to US tax authorities before closing it on November 30, 1999, a month before the creation of HSBC's Swiss private banking arm, she said. Herve Temime, another of the actor's lawyers, said Le Monde's linking of the actor to the Swissleaks revelations was "shameful", calling his client a "man of great integrity". Prosecutor Annabelle Philippe rapped the two journalists who authored the report, and who were absent from the proceedings, for not having the "decency to come and recognise the lack of professionalism of their investigation". Le Monde's lawyer Christophe Bigot, for his part, accused Malkovich of "creating a fuss" despite having had an account "in a discreet little bank in a country (that was) uncooperative" with other countries on tax matters. The court will rule on the case in October. (AFP)

John Malkovich a 'man of integrity', French court told lawyer in defamation case

defamation

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