First Amendment, Cross Burning, and Defamation: Case Studies and Analysis, Exams of Online Journalism

Download First Amendment, Cross Burning, and Defamation: Case Studies and Analysis and more Exams Online Journalism in PDF only on Docsity! JOMC 486 Online Quizzes with Verifies Solutions. Virginia v. Black involved two incidents of cross burning, one by Barry Black and the other by Richard Elliott and Jonathan O'Mara. Which of the following best describes the two incidents? - Correct answer Black burned a cross at a Ku Klux Klan rally, and Elliott and O'Mara burned a cross in a neighbor's yard. The plurality opinion in Virginia v. Black, written by Justice O'Connor, found the Virginia statute on cross burning unconstitutional because - Correct answer The prima facie provision eliminates the need to prove an intent to intimidate. The "prima facie" provision of the Virginia law at issue in Virgnian v. Black said jurors could presume - Correct answer That the cross burning was done with the intent to intimidate others. The Supreme Court said in Virginia v. Black the First Amendment allows states to punish cross burning done with an intent to intimidate because such acts amount to - Correct answer A true threat. The plurality opinion in Virginia v. Black defined "true threats" as statements in which the speaker - Correct answer Means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of violence on an individual or group. Justice O'Connor's opinion in Virginia v. Black said it is not necessary to show that one who utters a true threat actually intended to carry out the threat. Which of the following best explains why this is so? - Correct answer The prohibition on threats protects individuals from the fear of violence. Justice O'Connor in Virginia v. Black gave examples of when cross burning may be done without an intent to intimidate. Which of the following is NOT an instance of cross burning without an intent to intimidate? - Correct answer Cross burning on a neighbor's lawn. Justice Thomas dissented in Virginia v. Black. He argued that the Virginia statute was enacted to restrict the activities of the Ku Klux Klan and therefore was directed only at _______________. - Correct answer Conduct Justice Scalia argued the prima facie provision in the statute at issue in Virginia v. Black was constitutional because it still allowed the defendant to - Correct answer Offer rebuttal evidence. Justice Souter concurred in the majority's decision in Virginia v. Black in part because he believed evidence of an official intent to suppress ideas was afoot could be found in - Correct answer The prima facie provision of the statute. When might it be legal for the government to exercise prior restraint over a newspaper, according to Justice William Brennan's opinion in The New York Times v. United States.? - Correct answer If the publication would inevitably, directly, and immediately lead to a grave harm. A major complaint the three dissenting justices in the Pentagon Papers case advanced was that - Correct answer The Supreme Court had rushed to a conclusion. Justice Byron White's concurring opinion in New York Times v. United States expressed the view that the Espionage Act of 1917 - Correct answer Could be used to prosecute the Times and the Post for publishing the Pentagon Papers. What was the US government seeking to do in the case of The New York Times v. United States? - Correct answer Prevent the newspapers from publishing classified documents. The government's request for a prior restraint on The New York Times and The Washington Post to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers was based on the claim the president had _____________ to seek such a restraint. - Correct answer Inherent power In the New York Times v. United States case, Justices Byron White and Thurgood Marshall said they were reluctant to impose a prior restraint on a newspaper in the absence of - Correct answer A statute passed by Congress authorizing the government to seek a prior restraint. The Pentagon Papers, which were at issue in the New York Times v. United States Supreme Court decision, were - Correct answer A top secret study of how the nation became embroiled in the Vietnam War. When Scottie Pippen sued NBC Universal for libel, he was suing over a publication that falsely reported Pippen - Correct answer Had filed for bankruptcy. The federal appeals court in Pippen v. NBC Universal Media said one reason the false report that Pippen had filed for bankruptcy was not defamatory per se was - Correct answer People sometimes go bankrupt through no fault of their own. The federal appeals court said in Pippen v. NBC Universal Media the false report Scottie Pippen had filed for bankruptcy was not defamatory per se because - Correct answer The allegation had no bearing on Pippen's competence to be a basketball analyst and celebrity endorser. In Pippen v. NBC Universal Media, Scottie Pippen contend he had suffered special damages because - Correct answer He had lost endorsement and personal-appearance opportunities. In his lawsuit against The New York Times, L.B. Sullivan said the allegedly defamatory advertisement referred to him. What was Sullivan's reason for asserting this? - Correct answer He was the Montgomery, Alabama, commissioner who supervised the police. The allegedly defamatory statements at issue in New York Times v. Sullivan mainly concerned L.B. Sullivan's - Correct answer Official conduct as Montgomery police commissioner. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the plaintiff offered three bases for finding the Times published the allegedly defamatory advertisement with actual malice. Which of the following is NOT one of them? - Correct answer The Supreme Court said in New York Times v. Sullivan that a public official who sues for libel must prove a defamatory statement was made with - Correct answer Knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard for whether it was false. In New York Times v. Sullivan, plaintiff Sullivan offered three bases for finding the Times published the allegedly defamatory advertisement with actual malice. Of those three bases, the Supreme Court - Correct answer Rejected all three. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court said - Correct answer After The New York Times published the "Heed Their Rising Voices" advertisement, L.B. Sullivan demanded a retraction. The Times responded by - Correct answer Asking how the statements reflected on Sullivan. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court rejected two arguments Sullivan made for letting the judgment in his favor stand. Those arguments were - Correct answer The libels appeared in an ad and the case did not involve state action. Of the prosecutors to whom reporter David Wedge spoke regarding Judge Murphy (Murphy v. Boston Herald), David Crowley was the only one who witnessed the conversation where Murphy allegedly said "Tell her to get over it." Wedge interviewed Crowley - Correct answer Only after the allegedly defamatory story had been published. In Murphy v. Boston Herald, one issue was the notebook reporter David Wedge had used to record quotations and information. Wedge testified that he had - Correct answer Discarded the notebook. After reviewing the evidence in Murphy v. Boston Herald, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded there was [term1] evidence that the Herald had reported the story with [term2]. - Correct answer Sufficient Actual malice The allegedly defamatory statement at issue in Murphy v. Boston Herald is the report that Murphy said "Tell her to get over it" of a - Correct answer 14-year-old rape victim. Ernest B. Murphy, the plaintiff in Murphy v. Boston Herald, was a - Correct answer Superior Court judge. Among the witnesses to the conversation in which Judge Murphy (Murphy v. Boston Herald) allegedly said "Tell her to get over it" were two defense attorneys. Herald reporter David Wedge - Correct answer Never interviewed the attorneys. The major sources for David Wedge's story about Judge Murphy (Murphy v. Boston Herald) were prosecutors in the district attorney's office who - Correct answer The district court granted summary judgment for Fox in the case of Levesque v. Doocy because - Correct answer no reasonable jury could find Fox journalists were aware of any falsity In Levesque v. Doocy, the quotations Fox & Friends broadcast that were held to defame Levesque came from - Correct answer A news story parody by Nicholas Plagman. In the case of Levesque v. Doocy, why did Levesque have to prove actual malice to make out his defamation claim? - Correct answer Levesque is a public official. In Levesque v. Doocy, the federal district court found that the statements made on Fox & Friends - Correct answer Were defamatory in nature because they exposed Levesque to public ridicule. In Levesque v. Doocy, the federal district court concluded Fox & Friends did not broadcast its piece about with actual malice in part because - Correct answer the Fox journalists had checked some of their facts against reliable sources. The Supreme Court in its Gertz v. Robert Welch decision justified treating public figures differently from private individuals because - Correct answer Private individuals lack access to the media. The Supreme Court limited state libel law in Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. by ruling that states may not impose liability without proof of [term1]. However, states do not need to require private individuals who a libel plaintiffs to prove [term2]. - Correct answer Actual malice Defamation or fault ? The Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch said plaintiff Elmer Gertz was - Correct answer A public figure The Supreme Court said in Gertz v. Robert Welch a person most commonly becomes a public figure - Correct answer By voluntarily involving oneself in a matter of public interest. The Supreme Court said in Gertz v. Robert Welch that most public figures either - Correct answer Have great persuasive power and influence or have thrust themselves to the forefront of a controversy. The Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. identified three categories of public figures: involuntary, general-purpose, and limited-purpose. Match the names of the categories with their correct definitions. - Correct answer Involuntary public figure:Someone who has become a public figure through no purposeful action of his own (very rare). General-purpose public figure:A person of such persuasive power and influence as to be a public figure for all occasions. Limited-purpose public figure:A person who has thrust himself or herself to the front of a public controversy to affect its resolution. Elmer Gertz, the plaintiff in Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., was which of the following? - Correct answer A lawyer representing a family bringing a civil lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department. The California Supreme Court said in Shulman v. Group W that judges should weigh four factors in deciding whether something is of legitimate public concern. Which of the following is NOT one of them? - Correct answer The offensiveness of the facts. The California Supreme Court said in Shulman v. Group W the broadcast was of legitimate public concern because - Correct answer people want to know about the rescue and treatment of accident victims. According to the California Supreme Court in Shulman v. Group W, material is considered of legitimate public interest - Correct answer if reasonable members of the community would entertain a legitimate interest in it. Which of the following is NOT an element of a lawsuit for publicity to private facts according to the California Supreme Court''s Shulman v. Group W decision? - Correct answer The publisher must know or have reason to believe the facts are false. In ruling on the Shulmans' publicity-to-private-facts claim, the California appellate court in Shulman v. Group W - Correct answer granted summary judgment because the broadcast was newsworthy. The court said the Jewel-Osco ad was commercial speech because it - Correct answer Was an example of image advertising. Jewel Food Stores argued that its advertisement in the commemorative issue of Sports Illustrated was noncommercial speech because - Correct answer