Defamation and privacy + Scientific messages Flashcards
In most states truth is..
seen as an absolute defense.
Curtis Pub. Co. vs. Butts (1967)
Extends actual malice to public figures
all- purpose public figures
And
limited purpose public figures
all- purpose public figures= nationally known, voluntarily put themselves in the publics eye.
limited purpose= have only temporarily captured the public eye, within a context
Gertz v. Welch (1974)
Welch published a personal attack on Gertz, Gertz considered himself a private citizen so he took them to courts.
Court held that when you are defaming private citizens, intent is not the indicator of liable. You can still be sued for liable.
It established presumed damages.
3 levels of fault
Actual malice
Gross Negligence
Negligence
Actual malice - Punitive damages applicable here (set out to harm the person)
Gross Negligence (were not concerned if its true or not)
Negligence (accidental defamation due to things like improper fact checking)
By saying a statement is an opinion is it immune to defamation?
An opinion can be considered defamatory even if its “just your opinion”
Masson v. New Yorker (1991)
The first amend does not protect a fabricated quotation even if it is a rational interpretation of what was said.
Yelp ect. are? and it allows them?
channels for information, common carriers
Immunity from being charged for what people post.
“You Own Your Own Words” - the individual who posted the information would be held liable for defamation, not the channel they used to publish it.
SLAPP
Strategic lawsuit against public participation
lawsuits waged to shut the person up, and stifle criticism.
Intended to influence gov action.
Concerns a significant public issue
Columbia Vs. Omni (1991)
“A concerted effort to influence public officials regardless of intent.”
It gives petitioning a greater freedom, except in the case of a sham petition.
ex: picketers outside mcdonalds that don’t rly care about the health, issues and instead have an underlying motive like they work for subway or something”
Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952)
Group Libel = an attempt to deal with racist speech.
Fighting Words
offensive words that are not likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace are protected.
R.A.V v. St. Paul (1992) - St.Paul ordinance law ruled unconstitutional, but the concurring opinions that disagree with the reasoning of the court, the majority ruled that the law was a content restriction, it was uniquely bad because it singled out racist speech.
Virginia v. Black (2003)- a statute in Virginia that specifically singled out cross burning as intimidating speech that could not be protected. (came down to the idea that if it was a true threat it was illegal, and the main difference is that it is targeted)
Cross Burning cases
4 elements of defamation
1) Statement that damages reputation
2) Publication
3) Identification
4) Fault (rule established as actual malice)
Elonis v. US (2015)
Treats in cyber space. This guys threatened his ex wife with lyrics on FB. The lower court used a negligence standard, Supreme court said his post had to be proved to be intended as a true threat. - Sets a higher standard for what is needed to prove a true threat on the interwebs. Context is important for both this and cross burning.
libel per se
libel per quod
Per Se: Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for “general damages,” and not just specific losses.
Per Quod: if the defamatory character of the statement is not apparent on its face, With defamation per quod, the plaintiff has to prove actual monetary and general damages.
Defamation defenses
1) Truth.
2) Tarnished reputation
3) Privileged communication: Absolute and Qualified privilege
Defamation damages
1) General Damages – these include “damages for loss of reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings”;
2) Special Damages – these “are all damages plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered in respect to his property, trade, profession or occupation including such amounts of money as the plaintiff alleges and proves he has expended.
3) Punitive damages: or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.
Strict liability
In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous.
Public official; public figure
When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.”
NYT v. Sullivan (1964)
Established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States.
Actual Malice
The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
Brandeis & Warren, 1890
The right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The idea of a right to privacy was first addressed within a legal context in the United States. Louis Brandeis.published an article called “The Right to Privacy” in the Harvard Law Review in 1890 arguing that the U.S. Constitution and common law allowed for the deduction of a general “right to privacy”
Disclosure
False light
Appropriation
Intrusion
- Intrusion of Solitude
Intruding upon another’s solitude or private affairs, physically or otherwise, is subject to liability if this intrusion would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person. This type of invasion of privacy is commonly associated with “peeping Toms,” someone illegally intercepting private phone calls, or snooping through someone’s private records. - Appropriation of Name or Likeness
Plaintiffs may make a claim for damages if an individual (or company) uses their name or likeness for benefit without the other party’s permission. Usually this involves a business using a celebrity’s name or likeness in an advertisement. In fact, some states limit this type of invasion of privacy tort to commercial uses. - Public Disclosure of Private Facts
This type of invasion of privacy claim must be weighed against the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Unlike defamation (libel or slander), truth of the disclosed information is no defense. Legal action may be taken if an individual publicly reveals truthful information that is not of public concern and which a reasonable person would find offensive if made public. - False Light
A false light claim is similar to a defamation claim in that it allows an individual to sue for the public disclosure of information that is misleading (or puts that person in a “false light”), but not technically false. The key difference is that defamation claims only apply to the public broadcasting of false information; and as with defamation, sometimes First Amendment protections prevail.
Hustler v. Falwell (1988)
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, in a unanimous 8–0 decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case[1]), that the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them.
Thus, Hustler magazine’s parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $150,000 in damages by a lower court.
Terminiello v. City of Chicago
Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a “breach of peace” ordinance of the City of Chicago which banned speech which “stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance” was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.
Cohen v. California (1971)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a man’s conviction for the crime of disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket in the public corridors of a courthouse that displayed the phrase, “Fuck the Draft”.
this case concerned “speech”, and not “conduct”
