Vocab Chapter 4

Front 1

Damages

Back 1

Monetary compensation that may be recoverd in court by any person who has suffered loss or injury. Dangaes may be compensatory for actual loss or punitive as punishment for outrageous conduct

Front 2

Seditious libel

Back 2

Communication meant to incite people to change the government; criticism of the government

Front 3

Sedition Act of 1798

Back 3

Federal legislation under which anyone "opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States" could be imprisoned for up to two years. The act also made it illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything that criticized the president or Congress. The act ultimately was seen as a direct violation of the First Amendment and expired in 1801.

Front 4

SLAPP (Strategic lawsuits against public participation)

Back 4

Libel suits whose ubpose is to harass critics into silence, often to suppress those critics' First Amendment rights

Front 5

Burden of Proof

Back 5

The requirement for a party to a case to demostrate one or more claims by the presentation fo evidence. In libel law, for example, the plaintiff has the burden of proof.

Front 6

The Plaintiff's Libel Case

Back 6

1. A statement of fact
2. that is published
3. That is of and concerning the plaintiff,
4. That is defamatory.
5. that is false
6. for which the defendant is at fault.

Front 7

Communication Decency Act (CDA)

Back 7

the part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that largely attempted to regulate Internet content. The CDA was successfully challenged in Reno v. ACLU (1997)

Front 8

Libel per se

Back 8

A statement whose injurious nature is apparent and requires no further proof.

Front 9

Libel per quod

Back 9

A statement whose injurious nature requires proof.

Front 10

Slander per quod

Back 10

A spoken statement whose injurious nature requires proof.

Front 11

Negligence

Back 11

Generally, the failure to exercise reasonable or ordinary care. In libel law, negligence is usually the minimum level of fault a plaintiff must prove in order to receive damages.

Front 12

Actual Malice

Back 12

In libel law, a statement made knowing it is false or with reckless disregard for its truth

Front 13

"Reckless Disregard" Criteria

Back 13

1. Urgency of the Story- Is there time to check the information?
2. Source reliability- Is the source trustworthy?
3. Story believability- Is further examination necessary?

Front 14

Deposition

Back 14

Testimony by a witness conducted outside a courtroom and intended to be used in preparation for trial

Front 15

Public Figure

Back 15

In libel law, a plaintiff who is in the public spotlight, usually voluntarily, and must prove the defendant acted with actual malice in order to win damages.

Front 16

All-Purpose Public Figure

Back 16

In libel law, a person who occupies a position of such persuasive power and influence as to be deemed a public figure for all purposes. Public figure libel plaintiffs are required to prove actual malice

Front 17

Limited-Purpose Public Figure

Back 17

In libel law, those plaintiffs who have attained public figure status within a narrow set of circumstances by thrusting themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved; this kind of public figure is more common than the all-purpose public figure.

Front 18

Bootstrapping

Back 18

In libel law, the forbidden practice of a defendant claiming that the palintiff is a public figure solely on the basis of the statement that is the reason for the lawsuit.

Front 19

Involuntary Public Figure

Back 19

In libel law, a person who does not necessarily thrust himself or herself into public controversies voluntarily but is drawn into a given issue

Front 20

Private Figure

Back 20

In libel law, a plaintiff who cannot be categorized as etiher a public figure or public official, Generally, in order to recover damages a private figure is not required to prove actual malice but merely negligence on the part of the defendant.

Front 21

Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1999

Back 21

Food Lion awarded $2. Newsgathering case.

Front 22

New York Times v. Sullivan
USSC, 1964

Back 22

Sets standard of fault for future cases.
Unanimous decision in favor of the Times (0-9)

Front 23

Justice Brennan 3 reasons for letting NYT win

Back 23

"Allowing the decision to stand would create a new form of governmetn censorship by way of civil libel lawsuits."
"Major newsppapers would steer clear of contoversial topics." Or the 'chilling effect' (self-censorship)
"The mass media needs 'breathing space' in their handling of controversial topics; errors inevitably occur in robust debate."
Also public officials thrust themselves in public eye and should expect criticism and they have more access to media to respond to charges

Front 24

Rosenblatt v. Baer
USSC, 1966

Back 24

Brings 'minor public officials' into the actual malice arena.

Front 25

St. Amant v. Thompson, USSC, 1968

Back 25

Clarified reckless disregard for the truth: Necessary to have additional evidence

Front 26

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts

Back 26

Publishing Co. didn't win because they had ample amount of time for newsgathering

Front 27

Assoicated Press v. Walker

Back 27

Associated press won because it was newsworthiness and they had 'breathing space'

Front 28

Actual Damages

Back 28

Most common kind of damages awarded. They represent the quantity of the harm actually suffered by the plaintiff. Compensation for loss of standing in the community, humiliation and mental suffering

Front 29

Special Damages

Back 29

Exact dollar amounts specifically related to the material loss suffered because of libel

Front 30

Presumed Damages

Back 30

These do not require the plainriff to produce evidence of harm. Some degree of the harm is presumed even with absent proof. Will be awarded only when defendant acted with actual malice or negligence

Front 31

Punitive Damages (Exemplary Damages)

Back 31

Used as a punishment against the defendant and a warning to others from committing similar acts in the future

Front 32

Livel Plaintiff's Case When Publisher Defendant is Unknown

Back 32

The plaintiff must:
-Identify the anonymous party with as much specificity as possible so the court can determine if the defendant is a real person or an entity that can be sued.
-Demonstrate previous steps taken in the attempt to identify the anonymous defendant.
-Show athta its case is strong enough to withstand a motion to dismiss
-File a request for discovery with the court

Front 33

Libel Plaintiff's Case When the Publisher is Anonymous

Back 33

o 1—The speaker has been given adequate notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to the discovery request.
o 2—The requesting party’s cause of action could survive a motion for summary judgment on elements not dependent on the speaker’s identity.
o 3—A balance of the parties’ competing interests favors disclosure