Comm Law Test 2: Cases

Front 1

NY Times v. Sullivan

Back 1

Actual Malice and the Burden of Proof on the Plaintiff. 1.Falsity 2.Harm 3.Actual Malice 4.Pinitive or Compensatory Damages 5.No seditious libel

Front 2

Gertz v. Welch

Back 2

There are three types of public figures. 1.Pervasive 2.Vortex 3.Other

Front 3

Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co.

Back 3

A reporter made up interview answers about West Virginia woman. Knowing Falsehood (Actual Malice), Fabrication (Privacy)

Front 4

Goldwater v. Ginzburg

Back 4

Made Goldwater seem insane. Knowing Falsehood

Front 5

Liquori v. Republican Co.

Back 5

A reporter didn't double check to make sure he had the right Liquori, who was a criminal. Negligence

Front 6

Proxmire v. Hutchinson

Back 6

Proxmire would have absolute priviledge to talk about Dr. Hutchinson in the Senate, but he wouldn't in public.

Front 7

Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n. v. Bresler

Back 7

Greenbelt newspaper published an article that said land developer Bresler might have engaged in "blackmail." This is an example of rhetorical hyperbole or exaggeration, which is protected.

Front 8

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.

Back 8

Journalist Diadiun said coach Milkovich was a "liar." This can be proven true or false, so it wasn't hyperbole.

Front 9

Shulman v. Group W Productions

Back 9

Case of intrusion when an accident victim was recorded without consent in a helicopter. Separated public from private places. Also, participant monitoring.

Front 10

Dietemann v. Time, Inc.

Back 10

Secret recording of quack doctor was trespassing because the journalists had transmitters and photographers.

Front 11

Memphis Publication v. Nichols

Back 11

Libel per quod when the newpaper left information out of an article. Even if all the facts are true, leaving out info can be libelous.

Front 12

Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn

Back 12

It is not an intrusion of privacy when a reporter received the name of a dead rape victim and published it. You can publish if the info was legally obtained and is truthful.

Front 13

Florida Star v. BJF

Back 13

It is constitutional to publish matters of public importance if information is truthful and legally obtained. The Fla. journalist had legally obtained the name of a rape victim from police public records and published the name despite it being against a Fla. statute and the newspapers own practices.

Front 14

Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing

Back 14

Publication of legally attained truthful information of public importance can only be stopped with matters of the highest degree.

Front 15

Bartnicki v. Vopper

Back 15

Relying on Smith v. Daily Mail and Florida Star v. BJF, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the media’s dissemination of lawfully acquired info about an issue of public importance outweighs the legislatures’ interest in discouraging lawful interceptions and protecting the privacy of wire and electronic conversations. To deter unlawful recordings, it is better to punish the interceptors than the journalists who innocently acquire and disseminate the recordings, Justice Stevens wrote for the majority.

Front 16

Florida Publishing Co. v. Fletcher

Back 16

It isn't considered trespass when a journalist is invited into a fire scene by an official, even if the private owner didn't give permission.

Front 17

Pearson v. Dodd

Back 17

It wasn't trespass when a journalist received possibly illegally obtained information about Senator Dodd's campaign because he didn't do anything illegal. Public Officials

Front 18

Gill v. Curtis Publishing Co.

Back 18

Gill won the case of False Light when a photojournalist took a picture of him and his wife at a Farmer's Market and then the image appeared in an article about Love at First Sight in the Ladies Journal.

Front 19

Times v. Hill

Back 19

All plaintiffs, private or public, must prove NYT actual malice in cases of False Light when involving a newsworthy situation, like the Hill family who had been kept captive.

Front 20

Hustler v. Falwell

Back 20

It can be considered a case of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress only if the publication is very believable and there is provable emotional impact.

Front 21

St. Amant v. Thompson

Back 21

It wasn't reckless disregard for the truth when St. Amant said that his opponent Thompson had bribed a local union member because he had a reliable source and he honestly believed it.

Front 22

St. Amant v. Thompson

Back 22

It wasn't reckless disregard for the truth when St. Amant said that his opponent Thompson had bribed a local union member because he had a reliable source and he honestly believed it.

Front 23

AP v. Walker

Back 23

The AP reporter had a reliable source. There was no reason to believe the facts weren't true. Under deadline pressure, there are bound to be errors.

Front 24

St. Amant v. Thompson

Back 24

It wasn't reckless disregard for the truth when St. Amant said that his opponent Thompson had bribed a local union member because he had a reliable source and he honestly believed it.

Front 25

AP v. Walker

Back 25

The AP reporter had a reliable source. There was no reason to believe the facts weren't true. Under deadline pressure, there are bound to be errors.

Front 26

St. Amant v. Thompson

Back 26

It wasn't reckless disregard for the truth when St. Amant said that his opponent Thompson had bribed a local union member because he had a reliable source and he honestly believed it.

Front 27

AP v. Walker

Back 27

The AP reporter had a reliable source. There was no reason to believe the facts weren't true. Under deadline pressure, there are bound to be errors.