Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
33 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN, 1964
|
public officials have to prove actual malice(knowledge of falsity and reckless disregard for the truth.)
|
|
|
CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS, 1967
|
public figures have to prove actual malice
|
|
|
GERTZ V. ROBERT WELSCH, INC., 1974
|
private people have to prove actual malice for punitive damages. differentiated b/n three types of public figures,general, limited purpose, and involuntary
|
|
|
General/All Purpose Public Figures
|
persons who've achieved pervasive fame or notoriety in their communities or are pervasively involved in the affairs of society.
|
|
|
Limited Purpose Public Figures
|
people that thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of issues involved.
|
|
|
Involuntary Public Figures
|
thrust into a matter of public concern not by voluntary actions but through bad luck.
|
|
|
TIME INC. V. FIRESTONE, 1976
|
Mrs. Firestone private person because her divorce wasn't a public controversy that impacts the public.
|
|
|
HARTE HANKS COMM. V. CONNAUGHTON, 1989
|
newspaper's inaction (not interviewing Patsy, or listening to tapes), was purposeful avoidance of the truth, which is reckless disregard and actual malice.
|
|
|
The omission is easy to understand if there were serious doubts and the newspaper wanted to publish anyway. What case was this?
|
Harte-Hanks Comm's v. Connaughton
|
|
|
T/F and why?: Failure to investigate, standing alone, is insufficent for finding of actual malice.
|
True. But purposeful avoidance of the truth IS.
|
|
|
T/F: Testimony alone may be insufficient to show belief in the truth.
|
True
|
|
|
Define Negligence
|
Conduct that creates an unreasonable risrk of harm; conduct that would be avoided by reasonable care; failure to exercise reasonable or ordinary care.
|
|
|
public officials must prove actual malice. which case?
|
NYT v. Sullivan
|
|
|
Public officials have a higher burden of proof. Which case?
|
NYT v. Sullivan
|
|
|
Private persons must prove actual malice in order to win punitive damages. Which case?
|
Gertz v. Robert Welsh
|
|
|
Limit for punitive damages in VA
|
$350,000
|
|
|
Which case in Gazette v Harris had a finding of actual malice?
|
Flemming v Moore. UVA developer ad np called professor racist. Placed ad with insufficent evidence to reduce professor's voice of opposition.
|
|
|
3 types of damages
|
compensatory, special, and punitive
|
|
|
compensatory
|
ie to pay for harmed reputation
|
|
|
special damages
|
ie salary if lost job
|
|
|
public official
|
works for government, is paid with ublic funds, and is or appears to be in policy making decision
|
|
|
limited purpose public figure
|
must be an ongoing public controversy (social, political, economic, or gov issues); person must have thrust himself into the conversey, in an atempt to affect the outcome of the controversy.
|
|
|
example of a limited purpose public figure
|
pastor leading a movement to stop gambling in a state.
|
|
|
pre-defense defenses
|
summary judgment, statue of limitations
|
|
|
defenses
|
summary judgement, statute of limitations, defeat an element of the plaintifffs burden of proof, truth, qualified privilege, opinion
|
|
|
three complete defenses
|
truth, qualified privilege, and opinion
|
|
|
qualified privilege
|
a privilege to discuss matters conducted in an absolutely privileged forum
|
|
|
qualifications of qualified privilege
|
report must be accurate, fair, and made w/o common law malice
|
|
|
reporting defenses
|
good reporting and neutral reporting
|
|
|
good reporting
|
no negligence
|
|
|
neutral reporting
|
allows media to report on newsworthy commentary, even if journalists have doubts ab the truth of the statements being made
|
|
|
5 criteria for neutral reporting defense
|
comments must be newsworthy and related to a public controversy, made by a respectable prsn or org, about a public official or public figure, accuratly reporting with opposing views, reported impartially
|
|
|
no such thing as a false idea
|
gertz v robert welsch, inc.
|
