Comm Law Final Exam Pt 2

Front 1

elements of libel

Back 1

defamation: hurts someone’s reputation
identification: by name or some other designation understood by someone other than the victim and perpetrator
publication, communication, or dissemination: to someone other than victim or perpetrator
fault: provably false message communicated with actual malice or negligence
damages: tangible or intangible losses compensated by money

Front 2

libel defenses

Back 2

truth: plaintiffs have burden of proving falsity
privilege: fair and accurate accounts of what occurs during many government proceedings or appears in many public records
fair comment: statement of opinion (as opposed to provably false facts)

Front 3

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Back 3

libel suit against NYT by police commissioner of Montgomery
Court ruled that public officials must prove actual malice to win suits against media

Front 4

Gertz v. Welch (1974)

Back 4

reinstated differences between public and private figures
created "limited purpose public figures": those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved
set up two levels of fault: actual malice and negligence
public figures must prove actual malice
states can allow private persons to prove level of fault against media short of actual malice, but in no case media can be held to strict liability
abolished presumed damages except when actual malice is proved
plaintiffs can win special (out-of-pocket) and general (hurt reputation) damages

Front 5

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990)

Back 5

wrestling coach sued columnist who accused him of lying under oath
Court held that opinions with false factual implication have no separate Constitutional protection in libel suits

Front 6

Janklow v. Newsweek (1986)

Back 6

Newsweek implied Janklow, governor of South Dakota, prosecuted Dennis Banks, Native American activist, for revenge after Banks falsely accused him of raping an Indian girl
ruled it was criticism involving issues of national importance
listed criteria to differentiate between fact and opinion:
precision and specificity of statement
verifiability of statement
literary context of statement: type of publication, style of writing, and intended audience
public context of statement

Front 7

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971)

Back 7

magazine dealer George Rosenbloom was arrested in a police campaign against obscenity
radio station owned by Metromedia called him "smut dealer" and "girlie-book peddler"
Court ruled Rosenbloom a public figure
seemed to say that media could bootstrap themselves out of a lawsuit by publicizing person's activities to generate public interest

Front 8

Hutchsinson v. Proxmire (1979)

Back 8

Proxmire awarded satirical Golden Fleece to Hutchinson
Court ruled that it was beyond limits of qualified privilege
ruled that Dr. Hutchinson, research director of a major state-controlled mental health facility, was not a public figure

Front 9

Time Inc. v. Firestone (1976)

Back 9

Russell Firestone sued his wife for divorce
Court ruled she was a private person
dissolution of marriage is not public controversy

Front 10

Section 230 (Telecommunications Act of 1996)

Back 10

declared Internet service providers are not to be treated as publishers and held liable for content of messages they carry, regardless of content filtering systems to screen out objectionable material or not

Front 11

anti-SLAPP laws

Back 11

many lawsuits are meant to intimidate commonplace citizens from speaking out (SLAPP)
anti-SLAPP laws protect against corporate harassment

Front 12

Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (1902)

Back 12

Abigail Roberson’s picture used without permission in flour ad
court ruled that "right to privacy" didn’t exist yet

Front 13

Katz v. U.S. (1967)

Back 13

monitoring devices on public telephone booths
"a person’s right to privacy extends to all areas where there is a justifiable expectation of privacy"

Front 14

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Back 14

abortions are a private matter between a woman and her physician in early months of pregnancy
states may not place undue burden on a woman’s right to choose an abortion

Front 15

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Back 15

gave constitutional right of privacy for homosexual acts
"the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime"

Front 16

four torts of privacy

Back 16

intrusion upon seclusion
public disclosure of embarrassing facts
false light
misappropriation

Front 17

privacy defenses

Back 17

newsworthiness
consent

Front 18

Dietemann v. Time Inc. (1971)

Back 18

two Life magazine reporters took pictures of a doctors practice while posing as patients
Court ruled that pictures and story was newsworthy, but the reporters intruded on Dietemann’s privacy while gathering info
no right to use hidden electronic devices in the man’s home

Front 19

Florida Publishing Co. v. Fletcher (1976)

Back 19

photographer took picture of silhouette left by a girl’s body after a fire because the police ran out of film
fire marshal asked photographer to take the picture
Florida S.C. found no actionable trespass or invasion of privacy

Front 20

Galella v. Onassis (1973)

Back 20

Galella photographed Onassis and her children to the point that they felt threatened
Galella’s conduct was outrageous and therefore could be restricted

Front 21

Sanders v. ABC (1999)

Back 21

ABC used hidden cameras to infiltrate psychic telephone business
even workers who talk openly to co-workers have “a limited, but legitimate, expectation of [privacy]”

Front 22

Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002)

Back 22

a communication is confidential and therefore cannot be secretly taped, whenever any party believes it is not being taped or monitored by anyone else

Front 23

Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001)

Back 23

broadcaster had the right to air a pirated tape recording of a private cell phone call because the tape was lawfully obtained from a third party and it was newsworthy

Front 24

Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn (1975)

Back 24

rape victim’s name was published
a state can report the contents of open court records

Front 25

Time Inc. v. Hill (1967)

Back 25

Hill sought damages against Time for embellishing kidnapping experience
"persons involved matter of public interest could not win a false light privacy suit" without proving actual malice

Front 26

Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing (1974)

Back 26

Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter wrote a follow up story on the family of a collapsed bridge victim
made the Cantrells seem more poor than they were
Court held that the paper did publish falsehoods, and as such, was liable for the actions of its reporters

Front 27

Sinatra v. Goodyear (1970)

Back 27

courts said it was clear that Nancy Sinatra was not singing the song nor appearing in the ad
Sinatra’s right of publicity had not been violated

Front 28

Midler v. Ford Motor Company (1988)

Back 28

recording sounded so much like Midler that listeners thought it was her
jury awarded her damages

Front 29

Cher v. Forum International (1982)

Back 29

publication of article did not violate right of publicity but the advertising for it did

Front 30

Booth v. Curtis Publishing (1962)

Back 30

allowed Holiday magazine to use a previously published photo of actress Shirley Booth in later advertising for magazine

Front 31

Hoffman v. Capital Cities (2001)

Back 31

Hoffman’s head was superimposed on a model in a designer’s dress
magazine had a First Amendment right to publish the altered photograph of Hoffman as news, particularly because he made a movie in which his character cross-dresses

Front 32

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting (1977)

Back 32

Zacchini's human cannonball act was broadcasted in its entirety
Court declared that the First Amendment did not protect a broadcaster who took a performer’s entire act and showed it without consent