New York Times v Sullivan and Libel Laws: Actual Malice and Public Figures - Prof. William, Study notes of Media Laws and Ethics

Download New York Times v Sullivan and Libel Laws: Actual Malice and Public Figures - Prof. William and more Study notes Media Laws and Ethics in PDF only on Docsity! LIBEL New York Times v Sullivan (64) NYT denied a public officer damages from the article describing their actions against MLKjr in the civil rights protest. actual malice standard….a public figure must prove that actual malice was intended in order to win. Actual alice is stated to be “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard.”---whether it was true or false. -Actual malice must be proven by public figure Walker v AP (67) -Could not prove actual malice because the newspaper was on a deadline. -AP won. Accused of leading an angry mob of anti-integrationists Deadline pressures make the AP’s mistake less fragrant Curtis Publishing Co. v Butts (67) -Could prove actual malice because a magazine has more time to get the story straight and to correct invalid information -Butts won. The post had plenty of time to get all of the facts straight but their carelessness caused them to lose the case because of the invalidity of the information. Hutchinson v Poxmire (79) -Senators have immunity while on the floor. -Referred to people as ‘monkeys’ -He was not on the floor and his words were published, therefore he had no immunity. Hutchinson won, he wasn’t considered a public figure---few people knew his work. Gertz v Welch This case created the two types of public figures: all-purpose and limited-purpose Provate people are more in need of judicial redress This ended strict liability—strict liability was making a person legally responsible for her actions regardless of the terms -Gertz was a defense lawyer -Gertz was attacked by the John Birch Society saying he was running and anti- communist party etc. -Gertz was considered a private person. -His character was attacked, not his jov/performance cannot use “public interest” to force the plantiff to prove actual malice. -Gertz won. Mason v The New Yorker Magazine (91) -What constitutes as actual malice? It was decided in this case -Journalist wrote about a man that couldn’t be verified -Masson found her notes -Masson won. The reason this was such an issue is because the writer for the magazine had sloppy notes, thankfully for her she found her notes and was able to show that it wasn’t intentionally malicious. Hustler Magazine v Falwell (88) -“Intentional infliction of emotional distress” falwell’s short-lived win -Rev. Jerry Falwell was a very controversial preacher. He was anti-gay, etc. -Hustler magazine ran an advertisement that closely related the Rev.’s story of the first time having alcohol to having an incestuous relationship with his mother. -Falwell claimed emotional distress on won on that, not on libel. Case stopped at the Supreme Court. -High Court said that to win with emotional distress he must prove actual malice, since he is a public figure. The parody (ad) doesn’t qualify as proof of actual malice since the fake ad was not a “false statement of fact”. PRIVACY APPROPIATION Pavesich v New England Life (1905) -4 ways to invade one’s privacy: appropriation, intrusion, false light, or private disclosure of public facts this case dound a common law right to privacy the case involved using pictures of ordinary people to sell products with the persons’ agreement—MESSY pavesich’s picture was used for a health insurance ad Right to privacy---his privacy had indeed been invaded Right to publicity Georgia Case Zacchini v Scrpps Howard (77) -Asked station to not film the entire performance of Z’s human cannibal but they broadcasted the entire performance anyway. This violated his right of publicity. Likely would have NOT won if the clip had been short -Z won the case. Matthews c Wozencraft (94) W’s ex boyfriend sued her for writing a book about their joint work as narcotic detectives. Courts affirmed summary judgment, you can tell someone’s life story—you just better make sure you tell it correctly INTRUSION Pearson v. Dodd (69) FCC v Pacifica (78) Flagged as Indecency (which is easier to claim than obscenity) Carlin’s seven dirty words was played ont eh radio and the son was in the car with his father when it came on the radio -FCC regulates public airways COPYRIGHT Campbell v Acuff-Rose (94) -Pretty Woman parody - COMMERCIAL SPEECH Bigelow v Virginia (74) - Bigelow, director and managing editor of the Virginia Weekly, was convicted under this law when his newspaper ran an advertisement for an organization ---which referred women to clinics and hospitals for abortions. STUDENT PRESS LAW----HIGH SCHOOL Tink v Des Moines School Distric (69) -Black arm band. -Students proposed article on Vietnam War for student newspaper and administrators banned kids from wearing black arm bands. -5 students wore arm band and were sent straight home. -Federal Court ruled for the school. -Supreme Court reversed the court’s ruling. Saying schools can only prohibit speech that “materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” Bethel v Fraser (85) -Supportive speech for friend running for vice president. -Fraser lost -Found the school was allowed to prohibit use of vulgar and offensive language. It was concluded that the 1st Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the “fundamental values of public school education”. Hazelwood v Kuhleier (88) -Students wanted to publish articles about birth control and divorce. -School officials used prior restraint; deleted two pages of a pending issue. -Distric held no 1st Amendment rights were violated. -8th court reversed the ruling. -Supreme Court ruled for the school. -Since the newspaper was part of the curriculum, it is not a public forum. Schools can censor non-public forums if there are “legitimate pedagogical concerns”. -Courts decided to avoid applying the standard to public universities. -Private schools are not applicable to the Hazelwood decision Morris v Fredrick (2007) -“Bong Hits for Jesus” banner that students had while watching the Olympic torch pass. -District threw the case. -9th Circuit reversed and sided with Frederick -Supreme Court ruled for the school. Extra: 1. Open Public Forum: opened to everyone; government must accommodate all voices. 2. Designated Public Forum: open to everyone who qualifies for the manner of speech designated; by policy or practice opened the forum to allow students to express themselves freely; strongly first Amendment privileges. 3. Non-public Forum: not opened to the public; weak first amendment protection. COLLEGE Dickey v Alabama (76) -Dickey wrote an editorial that administration said he could not publish -We do not know if administrators can censor public university publications. Kincaid v Gibson (2001) -Kentucky State University Yearbook: 1994 Thorobred -The students printed the cover on “rain shower foil stamp” -District Court granted summary judgment because the university did not intend for the yearbook to be a “public forum”. -6th Court turned down the students but the students appealed. -The appeals court said that the University was being unreasonable. -Case remanded but the administration dropped the suit and released the yearbooks. Hosty v Carter (2005) -Staff of the Innovator, school newspaper, will determine content and format of their respective publications without censorship or advance approval. -Dean told printer to stop printing newspaper -7th circuit said the newspaper was a public forum and the students’ rights had been infringed. -We don’t know whether or not public universities will be held to the previous 60 precedents granting student editors wide 1st Amendment latitude. Wikileaks