Sentence examples for liable for publishing from inspiring English sources

The Supreme Court said that in certain circumstances, the press may not be liable for publishing information illegally obtained by others.

This term, it rejected the provision of the disability law the court addressed in the Garrett case; the restriction on welfare suits in the legal services law; a law requiring mushroom producers to pay for a government-sponsored program that advertises mushrooms; and a provision of the federal wiretap law under which the press could be found liable for publishing intercepted material.

Giving the edge to the public's right to know over claims of personal privacy, the court ruled 6 to 3 that the press may not be held liable for publishing illegally intercepted information if the subject is of "public importance" and the press did not participate in the interception.

In an important First Amendment decision weighing personal privacy against the public's right to know, the Supreme Court ruled today that the press may not be held liable for publishing illegally intercepted information as long as the subject is one of "public importance" and the press itself did not participate in the interception.

A14 First Amendment Ruling The Supreme Court held, 6 to 3, that the press may not be held liable for publishing illegally intercepted information as long as it is of "public importance" and the press itself did not participate in the interception.

Californians enacted AB 524 last year and holds news outlets liable for publishing photos taken of celebs who had a reasonable right to privacy.

The ruling, by Judge Stuart R. Pollak, cites a section of a 1996 federal law, the Communications Decency Act, which says that interactive computer services are not liable for material published on their networks.

To minimise the risk of misinformation, laws would need to be changed to make all company directors personally liable for knowingly publishing misleading financial statements.

For example, in Canada recently, when an issue arose about who was liable for some remarks published on a bulletin board, reliance was placed on a 1937 case, where members of a golf club had placed a poster containing defamatory remarks on the club's wall: the owners of the club were held liable for the remarks because they had knowledge of the poster and the power to remove it.

As companies grow, they argue that blocking piracy is difficult and that, generally, platforms aren't liable for the content that is published using their services.

Can the publishers be held accountable or even liable for the impact of the articles they publish?