Low Value: Defamation/invasion Privacy

Front 1

NY times v Sullivan

Back 1

Civil lawsuit b/w private parties. Alleged libel by statement in advertisement. Facts weren't exactly right. SC refused the damage award based on a libel action and established a new rule-in order for a public official to recover against the press, the official needs to prove that the press intended "actual malice", that is (1) that the statements were either known to be false, or (2) were spoken or printed with reckless disregard for the statement's potential falsity. When speech deals w/ a public issue and a public official i receives a high standard of protection under 1st amend. Debate on public issues must be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open"

Front 2

Curtis Publishing Co v Butts; Ass Press v. Walker

Back 2

Extends Libel to Public Figures (plus officials).

Front 3

Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc

Back 3

Gertz was lawyer for family whose son had killed by policeman. SC declined to extend the NY times standard to non-public figure or non-public officials who are involved in a "public issue". General farm v. Particular fame: must be general fame.

Front 4

Private individuals are under a different standard because

Back 4

1) They have not taken on public status of office voluntarily and therefore have not opened themselves up to the risk of defamation;
2) Private individuals do not have access to the press to exercise "self-help" remedies
3) He has relinquished no part of his interest in the protection of his good name and consequently he has a more compelling call on the courts for redress of injury inflicted by defamatory falsehood.

Front 5

A private individual may become a public figure if...

Back 5

Achieves such pervasive fame or notoriety, or if
He voluntarily "thrusts himself in the midst of a public controversy"

Front 6

NY Times Standard

Back 6

Must show malice w/ clear and convincing evidence

Front 7

Standard in the case for libel

Back 7

Impose a liability w/ some sort of negligence standard (mistake will not do and can't be strict liability)
Awards must be restricted to actual damages on the basis of D's negligence (may include pain and suffering and mental anguish)

Front 8

3 Levels of Concern in Area of Libel and First Amendment

Back 8

J. O'Connor
1) Public official + public issue = ny times rule
2) private individual + public issue = medium standard like in Gertz
3) Private individual + Private issue = Dunn & Bradstreet Std-No C concerns; no 1st amendment protection -state law applied

Front 9

Dunn & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders

Back 9

Greenmoss sued D&B for publication to five investors reporting Greenmoss filed for bankruptcy (report inaccurate). Ct found for Ps and awarded a total of 350k in damages.

Front 10

Time Inc v. Hill

Back 10

Family held hostage, someone did a fictitious play and a magazine publishes it. Family brought suit for invasion of privacy. That was a false light b/c it was fictional and ct allowed it (not an invasion of privacy).

Front 11

Cox Broadcasting Corp v Cohn

Back 11

Father of deceased rape victim brought suit against GA station after broadcast reported name of his daughter. Ct held that a state may not impose liability for public dissemination of the info derived from official ct records to the public inspection. SC confrimed holding to the narrows facts of the case-accurate republication of info in ct records that are lawfully available to public.

Front 12

Traditional View on Commercial Speech

Back 12

Traditional view was that "purely commercial advertising" was not entitled to any 1st Amendment protection, and could therefore, be subjected to governmental regulation in the same way as any other type of business activity. Less protection than other types of speech.

Front 13

Central Hudson Gas v Public Service Commission of NY

Back 13

1980
1st amendment imposes no restraints on government for purely commercial advertising. Ct held that commercial speech should be protect to a certain extent. Established a four part test for determining whether a given regulation abridges the 1st amend.

Front 14

Test for Commercial Speech

Back 14

1) must concern a lawful activity and cannot be misleading
2) whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial
If both yes, then 2 tier approach: if both inquiries are positive, then you go on to second step:
1) whether regulatio advances governmental interest (that you previously found substantial)
2) If the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction on commercial speech, the excessive restrictions cannot survive

Front 15

What is commercial speech?

Back 15

Bogler case-SC defines Commercial Speech:
Has to be speech that:
1) refers to a brand name product;
2) sppech where speaker has a financial interest in a sale of product/service;
3) it does not advertise an activity itself protected by 1st amend (contraceptive advertising)