Understanding Oklahoma Defamation Laws: Libel Per Se, Per Quod, and NY Times v. Sullivan -, Study notes of Communication

Download Understanding Oklahoma Defamation Laws: Libel Per Se, Per Quod, and NY Times v. Sullivan - and more Study notes Communication in PDF only on Docsity! JB 4163 — SECOND EXAM STUDY GUIDE: 11-LIBEL PART 2 Know the definitions and rules in general and how they are applied in Oklahoma. Be able to correctly recognize and apply them in hypothetical situations.  Can innuendo be defamatory? o Yes- Innuendo can be defamatory, however flat assertion cannot be found defamatory.  Can the libel suit be based on an isolated phrase taken out of context or must it be based on the article as a whole? o No- A libel suit cannot be based on an isolated phrase wrenched out of context. o The article as a whole must be considered.  Can a headline be the basis for a libel lawsuit ? o Yes- A libelous remark in a headline-even though it is cleared up in the story that follows-may be the basis for a libel suit. o The court adopted the rule that if a headline fairly indicates the substance of an otherwise accurate article, the headline is not defamatory.(Cortney) o A headline is the exception for a phrase which might be found libelous. The headline, even if it is clarified in the context of the story, may be found libelous in a court of law.(Leslie)  Does the word "allegedly" shield against a libel lawsuit? o No. Inaccurate and libelous in itself. o If the word alleged cannot be substituted by a formal declaration or charge, then it should be left out. If it can be substituted, it should be, on the basis of journalistic credibility and constitutionality.  What is the definition of defamation in Oklahoma? ( Senat pg 18) o Oklahoma Supreme Court said “A communication is defamatory if it tends to so harm the reputation of an individual as to lower him in the estimation of the community of to deter third parties from associating with him. o Who determines if the content is defamatory per se? (Senat pg 20)  The Trial judge o How is defamatory per se defined in Oklahoma ? (Senat pg 20)  To be considered defamatory per se, the words must be “susceptible of but a single meaning which may be considered shameful.”  The words “alone must be construed, stripped of all insinuations, innuendo, colloquialisms and explanatory circumstances.” o Is accusing someone of committing a crime considered per se defamation? (Senat pg 21)  Yes o What reasoning did courts in Ohio and Colorado use in deciding that an accusation of homosexuality should not be considered defamatory per se? Is it defamatory per se or per quod in Oklahoma? Would the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals' decision apply to every Oklahoma libel suit involving such an accusation? (Senat pg 23-24)  The Ohio Court of Appeals reasoned, “Being a homosexual is not a crime nor is it a disease. Additionally, being a homosexual would not tend to injure a person in his trade or occupation.” However, the court said, an accusation of homosexuality could be considered defamatory per quod if it were false.  The Colorado Court of Appeals gave three reasons:  1) The fact that sexual activities between consenting adults of the same sex are no longer illegal in Colorado tends to indicate that an accusation of being a homosexual is not of such a character as to be slanderous per se.  2)Because per se definition denotes “belonging in a category deserving of social approbation a court should not classify homosexuals with those reprobation and scorn which is implicitly a part of the slander/libel per se classifications.  3) For a characterization of a person to warrant a per se classification, it should, without equivocation, expose the plaintiff to public hatred or contempt. However, there is no empirical evidence in this record demonstrating that homosexuals are held by society in such poor esteem. Indeed, it appears that the community view toward homosexuals is mixed.  OK- It treated the implication of homosexuality as defamatory per se but limited the classification to the discussion for that case, apparently because at trial the plaintiff had not pleaded evidence of special damages as required for defamatory per quod.  NO