Comm Law Exam 2 Terms

Front 1

defamation

Back 1

any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation.

Front 2

reputation

Back 2

respect in community, etc.

Front 3

Libel

Back 3

the publication of a false and defamatory statement of fact about an individual, business or product that harms that individual, business or product and the media/defendant have no legal defense

Front 4

Absolute Defenses

Back 4

complete 100 percent protection-- based on status, position

truth
privilege
consent
statute of limitations

Front 5

Qualified Defenses

Back 5

protects most- but not all- of the time. specific conditions must be met

actual malice
neutral reportage/fair report
opinion/fair comment

Front 6

Actual Malice guidelines

Back 6

-reckless disregard for truth/falsity
-serious doubts about truth
-applies to public official
-must pertain to plaintiff's official conduct

1. was there deadline pressure?
2. was the source reliable/trustworthy?
3. did the story sound probable or far fetched?

PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PUBLIC FIGURES PROVE ACTUAL MALICE

Front 7

limited purpose public figure

Back 7

voluntarily thrust into specific public controversy

only in public spotlight within narrow context

Jewell vs. Atlanta Journal Constitution

Front 8

Libel plaintiff categories

Back 8

private figures
public officials
general purpose public figures
limited purpose public figures

Front 9

private figures

Back 9

do not meet criteria of public officials or public figures
more vulnerable to injury, more protected by the courts

only need to prove NEGLIGENCE

Front 10

public officials

Back 10

-govt. employees with responsibility or control over govt affairs
-greater access to effective media communication

ex: appointed reps, high ranking officers, judges...

NY TIMES V SULLIVAN

Front 11

general-purpose public figures

Back 11

have assumed roles of special prominence in affairs of society
household names - Britney Spears, Oprah

ex: CURTIS VS BUTTS, AP VS WALKER

Front 12

limited purpose public figures

Back 12

have entered public spotlight in narrow context

if defamation is related to public context

Gertz vs welch, jewel vs atlanta journal constitution

Front 13

proving negligence

Back 13

plaintiff has burden of proof of falsity of story

must prove false by "clear and convincing evidence"

Front 14

fair reportage

Back 14

protects media from liability for publishing defamatory information from official government documents

Front 15

neutral reporting

Back 15

objective, accurate, fair report of newsworthy event

protects media from liability for publishing defamatory comments made by a third party

Front 16

opinion

Back 16

rhetoric hyperbole
incapable of being proven true or false

Front 17

fair comment

Back 17

pure opinion - opinions based on true facts

Front 18

international infliction of emotional harm

Back 18

intentional or reckless, offends standards of decency or mortality
causes plaintiff emotional distress/harm

Front 19

SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation)

Back 19

designed to silence free speech
rich plaintiffs

Front 20

Invasion of Privacy

Back 20

appropriation
intrusion
private facts
false light

Front 21

Appropriation

Back 21

using one's name or likeness without permission to make a profit

Commercialization- private people (Keller vs EA)
Right of Publicity - public figures (Here's Johnny vs. Carson)

Front 22

Intrusion

Back 22

"keyhole" journalism

invading a person's solitude

1. newsgathering
2. possessing stolen property
3. trespassing

ex: Snyder vs. Phelps

Front 23

private facts

Back 23

publication of true but personal, intimate information
not of legitimate public concern.
highly offensive to reasonable person

Front 24

False light

Back 24

first cousin to libel
publication that leaves false impression (good or bad)

1.embellishment
2. distortion
3. fictionalization