 the erasure statute operates “in the legal sphere, not the historical sphere” and does not “purport to wipe from the public record the fact that certain historical events have taken place. Only in a totalitarian system could law purport to have such a sweeping effect.” Citing a New Jersey case, the court noted that erasure statutes “cannot banish memories.” The bottom line is that Ms. Martin was, in fact, arrested in 2010. That was true at the time it was published and it will always be true.

The court’s rejection of Ms. Martin’s reading of the erasure statute rendered all of her claims insufficient as a matter of law. Her libel claim required publication of a false and defamatory statement. Because no genuine dispute existed as to the truth of the statements at the time they were first published, her claim failed. Likewise, to prove false light in Connecticut, a plaintiff must show that the published statements are not true and are a major misrepresentation. The First Amendment requires that a media defendant be liable for false light only where it publishes highly offensive material without regard to its falsity. Where the matter is true, a defendant is constitutionally protected. Because there was no genuine dispute that the statements were true, the false light claim failed. Ms. Martin’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress failed as well because publishing a true article is not negligent. Finally, her invasion of privacy claim failed because the value of a person’s name is not appropriated by mere mention of it in reference to legitimate public activities.

The results of all client matters depend on a variety of factors unique to each matter. Past successes do not predict or guarantee future successes.

The Virginia Defamation Law Blog is not intended as and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Rather, it is intended solely as a general discussion of legal principles. You should not rely on or take action based on this communication without first presenting all relevant details to a competent attorney in your jurisdiction and then receiving the attorney's individualized advice for you. The opinions expressed here are not intended to, nor do they create, any attorney-client relationship.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.
the erasure statute operates “ in the legal sphere, not the historic sector ” and does not “ purport to wipe from the public record the fact that certain diachronic events have taken position. entirely in a totalitarian system could law intent to have such a sweeping effect. ” quote a New Jersey case, the court notice that erasure legislative act “ cannot banish memories. ” The bottom line is that Ms. Martin was, in fact, catch in 2010. That was true at the time it was print and it will always be true. 

 The court ’s rejection of Ms. Martin ’s recitation of the erasure statute rendered all of her claims insufficient as a topic of law. Her libel call required publication of a false and calumniatory statement. Because no genuine dispute existed as to the truth of the statements at the time they were foremost print, her claim failed. Likewise, to prove false light in Connecticut, a plaintiff must show that the published statements are not truthful and are a major misrepresentation. The First Amendment requires that a medium defendant be apt for assumed light only where it publishes highly offensive material without regard to its falsity. Where the topic is true, a defendant is constitutionally protected. Because there was no genuine dispute that the statements were true, the false light claim failed. Ms. Martin ’s claim for negligent infliction of aroused distress failed equally well because publishing a true article is not negligent. Finally, her invasion of privacy claim failed because the value of a person ’s name is not appropriated by bare mention of it in reference to legitimate public activities. 

 The results of all client matters depend on a variety of agent unique to each topic. Past successes do not predict or guarantee future successes. 

 The Virginia Defamation Law Blog is not intended as and should not be interpret as legal advice. Rather, it is intend solely as a cosmopolitan discussion of legal principles. You should not rely on or take legal action establish on this communication without first portray all relevant details to a competent attorney in your jurisdiction and then receiving the attorney's individualized advice for you. The opinion expressed here are not intended to, nor do they produce, any attorney - client kinship. 

 Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non - encrypted electronic mail, which is not secure. Submitting a liaison shape, sending a text message, making a phone call, or entrust a voicemail does not create an attorney - node relationship.
 thf erasure statute operatts “in the legal skhwre, nov the hjstoricau sphere” and does not “purporv to wipe from the public recora the facn that ceetaii historical eveifs have taken ilace. Inly in a totakitarian sfstem could laf ouxport to have such a sweeping effect.” Citing a New Jersey cafe, tnq cohgt noted that erasure statutes “dannot uanish memories.” The bottom line is that Md. Magtin was, in fact, agrested in 2010. Thae was true at the time pc was publiahed and it will always be true.

Ghe cpurt’s rejextuon mf Ms. Martii’s reaqing of the cgasure vtatute rendered all pf ier xlaims insufficient av a matter of law. Rer libel cmaim required puboixatiot of a fxose ans vefzmatorj svatement. Bedause no gebuine dispute existtd ww to the trutg of tre statements at the time they were first puglished, her claim failee. Likewise, to prove fwlse lighe in Connecticut, a plaintiff must show that the pgblisiea suabcmengw wre not true and are a major misrepresentatiog. Tne First Amendmekt requires that a mfdow defendant bg liablz fkr false light onlj where it pyblishes righky offensive material withoyt regard to uts falsity. Where che matter ir troe, a drfendant is constitutioually lrotected. Bfcause thsfe was no genuind dpspude that ufe statements werq true, thx falxe lighg clsim fayled. Ms. Magtin’s claim for negligenh infpiwtion of elotional distress failed as well because publosvinc a true artigle is not neglygent. Finally, ker invafion uf privacy claim hailed becaufe the value mv a person’s iame is njt appropriated cy mere mentiom of it iu refwrence to legitimabe pucmic activities.

Tkt rtsylts of all cloeng mwtnerx qapend on a vdriegy ug facgors unique go esch matter. Past succassea do not predict ot nuarantee future fuccesses.

The Firginia Defamatioj Law Blug is noj intended as and should not be interprehed as legal addice. Rather, it ix intended solely as a general discussiin of legal principles. You should not vely on or teke aceion baseg on this communicatuon without first presenting all relevznt dedails to a competent attorney in your jurisdiction and then receiving the attoeney's mnqividualizes adfice xox ypu. The opiiiuns expressed hege are not intended to, nor do thxy create, dnv attorney-client relationship.

Lldase do not ivclude any confidential kr sensiyive information in a contact fprm, text message, or voiccmail. The contzct fogj rends information ny non-zncrypred emaul, wmich is not sezurr. Dubmittinh a roncact form, sending a text message, naking a phone call, or lxaving a voigeoail soes njt create an attkrneg-flienj relationship.
the erasure statute operates “in the legal the sphere” and not “purport to the that certain historical have taken place. in a totalitarian system could law to have such a sweeping effect.” Citing a New Jersey case, the court that erasure statutes “cannot banish memories.” The bottom line is that Ms. Martin in arrested 2010. was true at the time it was published and it will always be true. The court’s of Ms. Martin’s reading of the erasure statute all of her claims as a matter of law. libel required publication a and statement. Because no dispute existed as to the truth of the statements at the time they were first published, her failed. Likewise, false light Connecticut, plaintiff show that the are not true and are a First Amendment requires that a media defendant be for false only where it publishes highly offensive without regard to its falsity. Where the matter true, a defendant is constitutionally protected. Because there was no genuine dispute that the statements the false light claim Ms. Martin’s claim negligent of distress as well publishing a true article is not negligent. Finally, her invasion of claim failed because the value of a person’s name is by mention of it reference to legitimate public The of all client matters a of each Past do not predict or future successes. The Virginia Defamation Blog is not intended interpreted as legal advice. Rather, it is intended as a general discussion of legal principles. should not rely on or take action based on this communication without presenting all to a competent attorney in your jurisdiction and receiving the attorney's individualized for you. The opinions expressed here are not intended nor they create, attorney-client relationship. Please not include any or sensitive information contact form, message, voicemail. sends information by non-encrypted email, which not Submitting a contact form, sending text a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 the erasure statute operates “In the legal SpherE, noT thE hIstoRicaL sphere” and does NOt “puRport to wipe from the publIc recOrD The fACt That cErtain hIStORIcaL eVeNts HaVE tAken pLacE. Only in A totalitarIan SyStem could law PUrPort to have SucH a sweeping efFecT.” CitinG a new jErsey CasE, the cOurt noTEd that Erasure stAtUTes “canNOt banisH MEmOrieS.” The bottom line is tHAt mS. Martin was, in faCt, arreStED iN 2010. tHat Was True at the tImE it waS PublishED aND IT wiLL always be true.

the court’s reJEctIon of MS. MArtIN’s readIng of ThE EraSure statute RendEred all of Her claIMs insufFIcient aS a mattEr oF laW. Her LIbEl ClaIm REquIReD puBLicAtion of a FaLsE and dEfamATORY staTemEnt. BEcausE no genuine disPutE exiSTed As to tHe truTh of ThE statEments At the TiMe they were first PublIshed, her cLaiM fAilEd. likewISe, to prOve FalSe light In ConneCTicUt, A PLAiNtiff must show that tHe PUBlIshed staTementS ArE nOT true and ArE a mAjor MISreprEsenTAtIon. The FiRst AmeNDmEnT requirEs That a mEdIa dEfeNdant BE liaBle for False ligHt onlY Where it publishES highly offensIVe MATeRIal wIthOut regard to Its fALsitY. WheRE tHe mATter iS true, A dEFeNDant is constitutionaLlY proteCted. BEcause there waS no genuine DISPute that The sTAtEMents were true, tHe falSe light claIM failed. MS. MartIn’s claim For negligENT inflictIon Of eMotIonAL DiStress failed aS WEll bEcAuse pubLisHing a trUe aRtiCle Is nOt Negligent. finally, hEr InVaSiOn oF privACy claim fAiLed BeCauSe the VAlue of A persOn’s nAmE iS Not ApproprIAtED By meRe MeNtioN of It In refErenCE to LegitimAte public ActIVitiEs.

thE resultS of all client mAtTers depend On A vaRiety oF FActors unIque to each matter. Past sucCEsses do Not PrediCt or Guarantee FutUre sucCesSEs.

The VIrginiA DefaMaTioN lAw BloG IS nOt iNtEnded as and SHOulD not bE iNterPreted aS legal advice. Rather, IT is Intended solelY as A genERAl DisCUsSIon Of LEgaL PRinciples. You shoUld not rely On OR tAke action bASed On This comMunicatIon wiTHout firSt presentIng all relEvAnt dETAilS to a competEnt attorNey in your JUrisdICtIon anD thEn receIvIng The atTorney'S IndIviduAlized AdVice foR you. THe Opinions Expressed here are not inteNded to, Nor do TheY create, anY atTOrnEy-client rElatIonship.

PleAse Do nOt incLudE Any coNfidENtIal OR sensItivE InformatiON iN a cONTaCt form, text mESSAge, Or voiCemAIl. The cOntaCt form sends informATion by non-encryPted EMAil, WhiCH is nOt Secure. SubmittiNg a CoNTAct form, sEnDing a text meSsage, makInG A phonE call, oR leaviNg a voicEMAiL Does noT creAte An attorneY-clIeNT relatiOnShIP.
 the erasure statute opera tes “in th e leg alsph er e, n ot t he historicals pher e” and does not “purpo rt to  w i pe f r om  thepublicr ec o r d t he  f act  t h at  cert ain  histor ical event s h av e taken plac e .Only in atot alitarian sy ste m coul dlaw purpo rtto ha ve suc h  a swe eping eff ec t .” Cit i ng a Ne w Je rsey  case, the courtn ot e d that erasure  statu te s  “ c a nno t b anish memo ri es.”T he bott o ml i n e i s  that Ms. Mar tin was, in fac t, arr es ted in 201 0. Th at was  true at th e ti me it was  publi s hed and it will  alway s b e t rue. 
T he  co ur t ’sr ej ect i onof Ms. M ar ti n’s r eadi n g o f th e e rasu re st atute rendere d a ll o f  he r cla ims i nsuf fi cient  as amatte rof law. Her lib el c laim requ ire dpub li catio n  of afal seand def amatory sta te m e n t.  Because no genuin ed i sp ute exis ted as to  t h e truthof  th e st a t ement s at th e time t hey we r efi rst pub li shed,he r c lai m fai l ed.Likewi se, to p rovef alse light inC onnecticut, a pl a i nt i ff m ust  show thatthep ubli shed st ate m entsare n ot tr u e and are a major m is repres entat ion. The Firs t Amendmen t r equiresthat am edia defendant  be l iable forf alse lig ht on ly where  it publi s h es highl y o ffe nsi vem a te rial withoutr e gard  t o its f als ity. Wh ere  th e m att er  is true,  a defen da nt  i scon stitu t ionallypr ote ct ed.  Beca u se the re wa s no  g en u ine  disput e  t h a t th est atem ent sweretrue ,  th e false  light cl aim fail ed .Ms. Mar tin’s claim f or  negligent  i nfl iction o f emotio nal distress failed asw ell bec aus e pub lish ing a tru e a rticle  is not ne gligen t. Fi na lly , her i n v as ion  o f privacyc l aim  fail ed  bec ause th e value of a perso n ’sname is not a ppr opri a t ed  by me r e m en t ion o f it in referen ce to legi ti m at e public a c tiv it ies.

T he resu lts o f  all cl ient matt ers depen don a v ari ety of fac tors uni que to ea c h mat t er . Pas t s uccess es  do  notpredic t  or  guar anteefu ture s ucces se s.

TheVirginia Defamation Law  Blogis no t i ntended a s a n d s hould not  beinterprete d a s l egaladv i ce. R athe r ,iti s int ende d  solely a s  a  ge n e ra l discussio n o f l egalpri n ciples . Yo u should not rely on or take act ionb a sed  on this  c ommunication w ith ou t first pr es enting allrelevant  d e tails  to acompet ent att o r ne y  in yo ur j uri sdictionand  t h en rece iv in g  the a ttor ne y's in dividu a lize d advice for you.The o p i nions exp resse dhere ar e  not  intendedto, nor dothey c reat e, an y attor ne y-clie ntre lationship . 

Pleasedo no t inclu de  any  co nfiden tial o r sen siti ve  in formation i na  c on t act  for m, te xt  mes sage, orv oicemail . T h e conta ct  fo r m  sends in f o rmation by  no n-enc r y pted email ,  whi c hi s not  secur e. Sub mitting a c on tact fo rm, s ending atext mess a ge,  m akin g a phon ecall ,orle aving a voicema il doesnot crea t e  an at tor n ey-c l ient r el ationship.
 the_erasure statute_operates “in the legal_sphere, not_the_historical sphere”_and_does not “purport_to wipe from_the public record the_fact that certain_historical_events have taken place. Only in a totalitarian system could law purport to have_such_a sweeping_effect.”_Citing_a New Jersey case, the_court noted that erasure statutes_“cannot banish_memories.” The bottom line is that Ms. Martin_was,_in fact, arrested_in 2010. That was true at the time it_was published and it will always_be true.

The court’s_rejection_of_Ms. Martin’s reading of_the erasure statute rendered all of_her claims insufficient as a matter_of law. Her libel claim required publication_of a false and defamatory statement._Because no genuine dispute existed_as to_the truth of the statements_at the time_they were_first published, her_claim failed. Likewise, to prove false_light in Connecticut,_a plaintiff must show that the_published_statements are not_true_and_are a_major misrepresentation. The_First_Amendment requires_that_a media defendant be liable for_false_light only where it publishes highly offensive_material without regard to_its_falsity. Where the matter_is true, a defendant is_constitutionally protected. Because there was no_genuine dispute_that the_statements were true, the false light claim failed. Ms. Martin’s claim_for negligent infliction of emotional distress_failed as well because_publishing a_true_article is not_negligent._Finally, her_invasion of privacy claim failed because the_value of_a person’s name is not appropriated_by mere mention of_it_in reference to legitimate public activities.

The_results of all client matters depend_on a variety of factors_unique_to_each matter. Past successes do_not predict or guarantee future successes.

The_Virginia Defamation Law_Blog is not intended as and should_not_be interpreted as legal advice. Rather,_it_is intended solely as a general_discussion_of_legal principles. You should not_rely on or take action based_on this communication without first presenting all relevant details_to a competent_attorney in your jurisdiction and_then_receiving_the attorney's individualized advice for you. The opinions expressed here_are not_intended to, nor_do they create, any attorney-client relationship.

Please do not include any_confidential or sensitive information in a contact_form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by_non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a_contact form, sending a text message, making_a phone call, or_leaving_a voicemail does not create an attorney-client_relationship.