Pr Law And Ethics Final

Front 1

4 component parts that help to define "whistleblowing"

Back 1

1. an individual acts with the intention of making information public
2. the information is conveyed to parties outside the organization who make it public and a part of the public record.
3. the information has to do with possible or actual nontrivial wrongdoing in an organization.
4. the person exposing the agency is not an journalist or ordinary citizen, but a member or former member of the organization.

Front 2

Utilitarianism

Back 2

do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
utilitarianism is based on the premise that ethical choices should be based on their consequences. argues that the best decisions generate the most benefits as compared with their disadvantages and benefit the largest number of people.

Front 3

Kant's Categorical Imperative

Back 3

do what's right no matter what the cost
Kant argued that individuals should do what is morally right no matter what the consequences, that we ought to make choices based on our duty to follow universal truths that are imprinted on our consciences.

Front 4

Communitarianism

Back 4

shoulder your responsibilities and seek the common good.
focus on the good of the group rather than the individual.

Front 5

Communitarianism: 7 C's

Back 5

COMMITMENT: comes when ppl work together to reach goals
COMPETENCE: citizens individually and collectively engage in learning and improving.
CONTRIBUTION: ppl want to contribute to a worthwhile cause.
COLLABORATION: involves identifying and mobilizing the various stakeholder groups on behalf of a larger cause.
CONTINUITY: encouraging ppl to set down roots so that the community doesn't loose its collective memory.
CONSCIENCE: refers to the way that communities publicize and then live out their values, principles, and ethical standards.
CONVERSATION: builds community. citizens make and share common values and meanings, build relationships, share info, solve problems, etc.

Front 6

Kant's Categorical Imperative: define categorical

Back 6

categorical = "without exception"

Front 7

Altruism

Back 7

love thy neighbor
argues that love of neighbor is the ultimate ethical standard. People are never a means to an end - they are the ends. Our actions should be designed to help others whatever the personal cost.

Front 8

What is ethics?

Back 8

Philosophical study of what is morally right or wrong in social conduct. usually determined by standards of professions, organizations, and individuals in society at a given time - conduct which affects others and/or oneself.

Front 9

David Perry's 6 W's and 2 H's

Back 9

Who
What
Where
When
Why
Website
How
How much

Front 10

Zelezny: Citizens United vs. Federal

Back 10

a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5-4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a critical film about Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act

Front 11

5 factors that regulate social conduct

Back 11

1. tradition: ways in which the situation has been viewed or handled in the past.
2. public opinion: what is considered acceptable behavior
3. law
4. morality: what we THINK about something, generally spiritual or religious.
5. ethics: what we DO about something.

Front 12

4 major privacy torts that primarily protect people from mass media: Commercial Appropriation of Name and Likeness

Back 12

appropriation is the commercial use of a person's name or likeness without consent. Individuals should have sole right to control the marketing or exploitation of their own persona.

Front 13

4 major privacy torts that primarily protect people from mass media: Public Disclosure of Embarrassing Facts

Back 13

the public disclosure of embarrassing private facts that are not newsworthy when the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. This tort concerns the dissemination of factual information and the plaintiff must prove the information was private until the media outed them.

Front 14

4 major privacy torts that primarily protect people from mass media: Placing an individual in a false light

Back 14

the representation of an individual in a false and highly offensive manner for the public. a false light's claim is to compensate the indiv for personal embarrassment and anguish, not for damage to reputation, and so it may be used when an erroneous public portrayal has caused personal trauma, but without evidence of injury of reputation.
False light includes distortion, embellishment, and fictionalization.

Front 15

4 major privacy torts that primarily protect people from mass media: Intrusion upon physical seclusion

Back 15

the intentional invasion of a person's physical seclusion or private affairs in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. This tort occurs during the information gathering process rather than by publication or broadcast.

Front 16

Commercial Appropriation of Name and Likeness: Commercial Use

Back 16

exploitation directly for trade or self-enrichment purposes. The general rule is that appearances in product advertising and promos are usually commercial uses, appearances in news contexts are not. To be deemed commercial use there must be some direct, self-serving link between the individual's identity and the promotion of a product or service or organization.

Front 17

Commercial Appropriation of Name and Likeness: Name or Likeness

Back 17

Name or likeness includes nicknames, voice, or any other mark of personal identity.
When a lookalike or sound alike is used in a manner likely to confuse the public it is considered commercial appropriation.

Front 18

Commercial Appropriation of Name and Likeness: Consent

Back 18

ppl under the age of 18 cannot legally give consent.
when consent is given gratuitously (not in exchange for anything) the consent may legally be withdrawn at any reasonable time prior to publication. Gratuitous consent is not a binding contract.
Only a knowing consent (conscience and intentional approval) is a valid consent.

Front 19

Commercial Appropriation of Name and Likeness: Dealing with deceased celebrities

Back 19

the right to depict deceased celebrities is viewed as essentially a property interest. A celebrity may assign the right to others and enforceability of the right survives the celebrity's death.

Front 20

Commercial Appropriation of Name and Likeness: First Amendment Issues

Back 20

courts need to declare a clarification between free speech and invasion of personal rights or privacy or publicity.
1st amendment rights only apply when likenesses are transformed to communicate a new message.

Front 21

Disclosure of Private Facts: Private Facts Standard

Back 21

this tort concerns the dissemination of factual information. The plaintiff must prove that the info was private until the media outed them.

Front 22

Disclosure of Private Facts: Highly Offensive

Back 22

even if truly private information is disclosed, no privacy claim exists unless the disclosure is one that would be highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. The plaintiff must convince the court that it is reasonable to act in that manner.

Front 23

Disclosure of Private Facts: Newsworthiness Standard

Back 23

legal acknowledgment that the public has the right to know in some cases, even at the expense of an individual's privacy.
Legitimate public interest vs humiliation for its own sake.

Front 24

How does the Disclosure of Private Facts run contrary to the First Amendment?

Back 24

because it involves the dissemination of true facts, which generally are protected by the 1st amendment.

Front 25

Who can sue for false light?

Back 25

only individuals can sue for false light or any other privacy tort.

Front 26

3 differences between false light and defamation

Back 26

false light aims to compensate the individual for personal embarrasment and anguish
defamation you have to be able to prove that the erroneous statement caused damage to your reputation
actual malice standard that is in libel cases should apply in false light cases

Front 27

false light falls under which 3 categories

Back 27

distortion (usually photos or videos taken out of context)
embellishment (includes cases where false info was added to journalistic accounts)
fictionalization (the use of real, identifiable characters in made up stories)

Front 28

privacy tort of intrusion with email

Back 28

may apply if the email user had a reasonable expectation of privacy and if that expectation was invaded in a highly offensive manner.

Front 29

state criminal statutes with email

Back 29

prohibit various forms of electronic surveillance or interception of private communications

Front 30

the ECPA of1986

Back 30

Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act includes the Wiretap Act, which prohibits the interception of an electronic communication without the prior consent of at least one of the parties to the communication. The EPCA also prohibits accessing communications that are stored in a computer system without specified authorization.

Front 31

Definition of Libel

Back 31

written defamation

Front 32

Definition of Defamatory

Back 32

an attack upon the reputation of another person.

Front 33

6 elements of a libel tort

Back 33

defamatory content, falsity, publication, identification, fault, harm

Front 34

who can sue for libel?

Back 34

individuals and companies

Front 35

in proving falsity, where does the burden of proof fall?

Back 35

the plaintiff, according to the supreme court case Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps

Front 36

Fact v. Opinion and the assertion of fact in an opinion

Back 36

not all "opinion" statements are protected by the first amendment. If the statement has some factual content that could be proved false by the plaintiff, it is not protected.

Front 37

does it matter if a defendant meant for their defamatory comment to refer to someone other than the plaintiff?

Back 37

the intent of the commenter doesn't matter, what matters is if a reasonable person would think they were referring to the plaintiff.

Front 38

What did the Supreme Court add to the elements of libel and who did it benefit - the plaintiff or the defendant? Why?

Back 38

they added that the plaintiff must prove fault on the defendant's part, which gave the defendant more leeway to make honest mistakes.

Front 39

double standard for treating public figures and public officials differently than private figures

Back 39

. For private person plaintiffs, it is constitutionally permissible to win a libel lawsuit by showing a lesser degree of fault than for a public figure plaintiff. The rationale behind this double standard is based on the relative importance of speech and the reasonable expectations and influence of defamed people. Speech concerning the conduct of public officials is considered, socially speaking, to be among the most important classifications of speech. Criticism of public figures is of particular public importance because famous people serve as role models and influence policies and events of concern to society at large. The Supreme Court has also noted that public officials and public figures generally have voluntarily exposed themselves to the risks of closer public scrutiny. They also enjoy greater access to the mass media, where they can counteract defamatory charges. Private people don’t have the same opportunity, and thus need more help from libel laws. Because of this, the Supreme Court has distinguished between public and private libel plaintiffs.

Front 40

double standard for treating public figures and public officials differently than private figures

Back 40

. For private person plaintiffs, it is constitutionally permissible to win a libel lawsuit by showing a lesser degree of fault than for a public figure plaintiff. The rationale behind this double standard is based on the relative importance of speech and the reasonable expectations and influence of defamed people. Speech concerning the conduct of public officials is considered, socially speaking, to be among the most important classifications of speech. Criticism of public figures is of particular public importance because famous people serve as role models and influence policies and events of concern to society at large. The Supreme Court has also noted that public officials and public figures generally have voluntarily exposed themselves to the risks of closer public scrutiny. They also enjoy greater access to the mass media, where they can counteract defamatory charges. Private people don’t have the same opportunity, and thus need more help from libel laws. Because of this, the Supreme Court has distinguished between public and private libel plaintiffs.