Defamation + Invasion of Privacy

Question 1

Defamation - General

Answer 1

Rule - P must show that D:

1. made a defamatory statement
2. that is of or concerning the P
3. the statement is published to a third party who understands its defamatory nature
4. damages the P’s reputation
5. and the statement is false

Question 2

Defamation - Constitutional Requirements

Answer 2

Public Concern - if matter of public concern, then P must show D was negligent regarding the falsehood;

Public Figure - if matter of public figure, then P must show actual malice

Question 3

Defamation - Defamatory Language

Answer 3

Defamatory - language that diminishes respsect, esteem, or good will towards the P or deters others from associating with the P.

Question 4

Defamation - Of or Concerning

Answer 4

“Of or Concerning” the P - reasonable person would believe the language reffered to P; if refers to group, then group msut be so small that matter can reasonably be understood to refer to that member.

Question 5

Defamation - Publication

Answer 5

Publication - must be communicated to a third party who understood the content

Repeat - a person who repeats a defamatory statement may be liable for defamation

ISP - immunue from defamantion actions

Question 6

Defamation - Falsehood

Answer 6

Falsehood - statement must be false but opinions are not actionable as defamation

Question 7

Defamation - Type of P’s

Answer 7

Note - constitutional limits depend on 1) who is the P and 2) what is the nature of the statement

1. Public Official - must show statement is false and statement was made with actual malice

Actual Malice - knowledge that the statement was false or acting with reckless disregard with the truth of the statement

Official - someone with responsibility over governmental affairs

2. Public Figures - must show actual malice

Note - not a gov. official, but in the public eye

General Purpose Public Fig - occupy position of pervasive influence and power

Limited Purpose Public Fig - if they have thurst themselves into a particular issue

3. Private Individual

Matter of Public Concern - if statement involves a matter of public concern, then D is entitled to some limited constitutional protections

Non-matter of Public Concern - no consititutional restrictions

Question 8

Defamation - Falsity

Answer 8

Falsity - must be wrong

Question 9

Defamation - Libel

Answer 9

Rule - defamation that is written, printed, or otherwise recorded ina permanent form (tv and radio broadcast included), then plaintiff must only prove general damages

General Damages - compensate P for harm to reputation

Question 10

Defamation - Slander

Answer 10

Rule - defamation by spoken word or gesture, or any non-livel form, then P must only prove either 1) special damages or 2) slander per se.

Special Damages - concrete Harm

Slander Per Se - statement must fall into one of 4 categories:

1. P has committed a serios crime or crime of moral terpitude
2. P is unfit for his trade or busienss
3. P has a loathesome diseae
4. P has commited severe sexual misconduct

Question 11

Defamation - Damages

Answer 11

1. Public Official/Figure - actual damages must be proven (no presumed damages)
2. Private Individual and Matter of Public Concern - actual damages must be proven
3. Private Individual and Not a Matter of Public Concern - general damages including presumed damages

Question 12

Defamation - Defenses

Answer 12

Truth - a truthful statement cannot be actionable as defamation and acts as a complete defense.

Consent - if you consent to the defamation, then you cannot sue.

Absolute Privilege - statements made:

1. in the course of judicial proceedings
2. in the course of legislative proceedings
3. between a husband and wife
4. in required publications by radio and TV

Conditional Privilege - statements made:

1. in the interest of the defendant (e.g., defending your reputation)
2. in the interest of the recipient of the statement
3. affecting some important interest (e.g., good reason and good-faith belief in the truth of the statement; company goes to hire someone and you believe he embezzeled at previous company then may be protected)

Question 13

Inv. of Priv. - General

Answer 13

Invasion of Privacy - four causes of action:

1. misapproriation of the right to publicity
2. unreasonable intrusion upon the p’s private affairs
3. false light
4. public disclosure of private facts

Question 14

Inv. of Priv. - Misapp. of Right to Publicity

Answer 14

Rule - D has engaged in the unauthorized appropriation of P’s image for their own commerical purpose and advatange, without consent, and P has been injured.

Question 15

Inv. of Priv. - Intrusion Uppon Private Affairs

Answer 15

Rule - D intrusion upon the P’s private affairs, solitude, or seclusion in a manner that is objectionable to a reasonable person.

Ex: eavesdropping on a private conversation or climbinga tree and taking photos of someone in their bedroom

Question 16

Inv. of Priv. - False Light

Answer 16

Rule - D made public facts about the plaintiff that placed the plaintiff in a false light which is highly offensive to a rasonble person

Ex: ingredient with complicated name; weird soup example, see packet

Question 17

Inv. of Priv. - Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Answer 17

Rule - D gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another and the matter publicized is highly offensive to a reasonble person and not of legitamate public conern.

Note - nearly impossible to win

Question 18

Inv. of Priv. - Defenses

Answer 18

Same Absolute and QUalified Privileges

Consent - if you consent to the defamation, then you cannot sue.

Absolute Privilege - statements made:

1. in the course of judicial proceedings
2. in the course of legislative proceedings
3. between a husband and wife
4. in required publications by radio and TV

Conditional Privilege - statements made:

1. in the interest of the defendant (e.g., defending your reputation)
2. in the interest of the recipient of the statement
3. affecting some important interest (e.g., good reason and good-faith belief in the truth of the statement; company goes to hire someone and you believe he embezzeled at previous company then may be protected)