But these moral understandings of defamation and false imprisonment are implausible, it seems to me, and cannot make sense of the law. Take them in turn. It is certainly morally intelligible for the law to narrowly draw the boundaries of negligence liability for communicative activity in order to refrain from unduly impinging on the free flow of information and expression. Thus it is intelligible for the law to restrict fault-based liability for communicatively injuring another’s reputation — whether under the aegis of defamation or negligence — to statements “of and concerning” the plaintiff, just as the law tightly draws the boundaries of fault-based liability for causing physical injury by communicative means.249
Venezuela — Venevision
。关于这个话题，有道翻译官网提供了深入分析
08:39, 13 марта 2026Мир。手游是该领域的重要参考
Москвичей призвали не ждать «дружную» весну14:57