Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

SMAD 450 > Exam 2 > Flashcards

Exam 2 Flashcards

Defamation & Privacy

1
Q

defamation

A

an expression that tends to damage a person’s reputation and good name

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

libel

A

written or printed defamation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

slander

A

spoken defamation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

criminal libel

A

government statutes that punish criticism of the government (has since been deemed unconstitutional)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

civil libel

A

lawsuit between private parties

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

libel per se

A

the words on their face are harmful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

libel per quod

A

the words are injurious in the context of other words (implication)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

trade libel

A

libel a product that a company invests a lot in

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

plaintiff’s burden of proof in a libel/defamation case

A

defamation
identification
publication
fault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

strict liability test

A

(prior to 1964) individual suing had to meet this
no finding of negligence required and if a damaged reputation resulted from a publication, there was a liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

fault for public official

A

prove actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (heavy burden)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

fault for private individuals

A

prove negligence or prove the media got some information wrong (low level)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

falsity

A

a burden only for persons suing for defamation related to matters of public concern

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

personal harm

A

loss of business, emotional distress, or reputation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

New York Times Standard (New York Times v. Sullivan)

A

killed the strict liability test - says that actual malice must be proven by public officials and public figures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

negligence

A

standard of proof for private individuals - may result from failure to try and contact the person being defamed, lack of effort to verify sources, and/or disregarding contradictory evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Ollman Test

A

used to determine fact vs opinion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron (1971)

A

USSC decided that no matter how remote in time or place a charge of criminal conduct against a public official is, it is always relevant to his/her fitness for office
emphasized the need to get information into the citizens’ hands before voting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Gertz v. Welch (1974)

A

courts defined what a public figure is (one who thrusts themself into the public arena involuntarily or assumes a role voluntarily in which publication is expected/assumed - Gertz was not a public figure)
states may define level of proof for a private person
defined all purpose and limited public figures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Time v. Firestone (1976)

A

USSC ruled that Mrs. Firestone did not assume any role of special prominence in the affairs of society (she was not a public figure just because she married one)
based on Gertz v. Welch

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Herbert v. Lando (1979)

A

Supreme Court held that a journalist’s mind may be probed in a libel case in order to establish actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association (1979)

A

USSC said that Wolston did not meet the definition under Gertz, but was “dragged unwillingly into the spotlight”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Gazette v. Harris (1985)

A

Virginia combined three cases and declared that negligence is the legal standard of proof for private individuals in the Commonwealth of Virginia (all decisions were upheld)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Dun and Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985)

A

USSC held that credit reports are a private matter and not a matter of “public concern”, so D&B only had to prove negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps (1986)

A

USSC stated that private individuals seeking damages on matter of public concern have the burden of proving that offending statements are false
overturned laws in 8 states

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Harte-Hanks Communication v. Connaughton (1989)

A

USSC ruled that the newspaper had made a “deliberate decision to not acquire knowledge” that would have revealed the falsity of charges against Connaughton

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal (1990)

A

provable-opinion case
Supreme Court held that fact-based opinions expressed in editorials do not enjoy the special protection under the First Amendment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Masson v. New Yorker (1991)

A

ruled that minor changes in quotations fail to constitute defamation
plaintiff has a burden of proof that the altered words substantially damage his/her reputation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

four torts of privacy

A

appropriation/commercialization, false light, intrusion, and private or embarrassing facts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

appropriation/commercialization

A

taking a person’s image or likeness for one’s own purposes without permission or compensation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

defenses of appropriation/commercialization

A

written consent, newsworthiness, incidental use, or ad for a mass medium

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Roberson v. Rochester Folder Box Co.

A

a company used Roberson’s picture without her permission in adverstisements for the company’s flour
significance: motivated New York to pass the first privacy statute

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

right of privacy

A

resides with the status of the person-celebrity status-revenue
its defense is newsworthiness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

artistic relevance test

A

used celebrity to sell the product

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

transformative test

A

how much originality is in the work

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

predominant use test

A

media put names in context for commercial purposes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard

A

Zacchini had his entire act broadcast by a Cleveland TV station without his permission
USSC ruled that the media must make sure that permission is acquired in commercial situations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Carson v. Here’s Johnny

A

Federal District Court ruled that in situations where a person is “known” by a name or slogan, there is a need to secure permission before engaging in a commercial transaction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Shields v. Gross

A

New York court ruled that a signed model release is a strong defense, regardless of the time element & a parent’s consent is binding for a minor

40
Q

Miller v. Ford

A

California court ruled that “sound-alikes” need to be legally cleared before undergoing a commercial venture

41
Q

Cher v. Forum

A

New York ruled that a magazine must secure permission to use a celebrity’s name in an endorsement

42
Q

Paulsen v. Personality Posters

A

a company sold posters of Pat Paulsen during his comic run as a presidential candidate
New York court ruled that the newsworthiness of an event may override a claim of appropriation

43
Q

false light

A

the spreading of “highly offensive false publicity” with knowledge of or a reckless disregard for the truth

44
Q

only tort recognized by the US Supreme Court

A

false light

45
Q

plaintiff’s position against false light

A

material was published
identification
information was false
highly offensive to a reasonable person
defendant knew the information was false

46
Q

Time v. Hill

A

the New York Times v. Sullivan actual malice standard was applied by the USSC to the false-light privacy tort

47
Q

Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing

A

USSC declared that falsifying quotes constitutes actual malice and fictionalization

48
Q

Uhl v. CBS

A

federal district court ruled that a hunter shooting birds is highly offensive to the average person in PA

49
Q

intrusion

A

protects a private person’s right to be left alone and control information about himself/herself

50
Q

defenses of intrusion

A

public spaces, written permission, and false pretense

51
Q

Galella v. Onassis

A

a federal district court ruled that overzealous members of the media can be restrained and must be respectful of the moments of private intimacy

52
Q

Le Mistral v. CBS

A

a New York court ruled that the newsworthiness of an event does not necessarily outweigh the right of a private company to conduct business undisrupted

53
Q

Florida Publishing Company v. Fletcher

A

a Florida court determined that the doctrine of custom and usage protected the media because fire authorities had invited the media onto the property

54
Q

custom and usage

A

the custom of the private property to allow everyone access if they are to utilize that area properly (ex. grocery stores)

55
Q

private or embarrassing facts

A

“published” information that is offensive to a reasonable person” and/or is not of concern to the public

56
Q

defenses of private or embarrassing facts

A

public record, newsworthiness, and written consent
NOT TRUTH

57
Q

Sidis v. F&R Publishing Co.

A

court determined that Sidis was still newsworthy after many years and had little to no claim to privacy

58
Q

Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest

A

federal district court ruled that Reader’s Digest had reported the information accurately and Briscoe was still newsworthy

59
Q

Williams v. KCMO

A

Missouri court declared that the newsworthiness of an event outweighed any privacy concerns in fast-breaking events

60
Q

Cape Publishing v. Bridges

A

an appellate judge ruled that the newsworthiness of the situation outweighed any privacy claim

61
Q

Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing

A

a California appellate court ruled that the newsworthiness of the event outweighed Sipple’s privacy claims

62
Q

intentional infliction of emotional distress

A

publication/broadcast of information that causes mental distress or physical harm to an individual through negligence

63
Q

defenses of intentional infliction of emotional distress

A

First Amendment, newsworthiness, and consent

64
Q

single-publication rule

A

subsequent sales or reissues or publications are not considered to be new publications, and therefore are not susceptible to libel claims

65
Q

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

A

USSC overturned original jury decision and ruled that a person cannot sue for emotional distress when there has been no defamation or privacy invasion

66
Q

Hyde v. City of Columbia

A

Sandra Hyde’s name and address were published while her abductor was still at large
Missouri court ruled that a newspaper and the city could be sued for emotional distress

67
Q

Olivia N. v. NBC

A

NBC aired a movie with an object rape scene and shortly after four youths used a bottle to rape a girl
California court ruled that the media had not “incited” the harmful action

68
Q

Walt Disney v. Shannon

A

Disney could not be sued for emotional distress because a young boy lost his sight after copying sound effects

69
Q

Braun v. Soldier of Fortune

A

court held the magazine liable for the harmful of the ad - ruled that the ad had subjected the public to a “clearly identifiable, unreasonable risk of harm”

70
Q

foreseeable risk

A

the media is held responsible if they create a foreseeable risk

71
Q

ride-along intrusions

A

police may be liable for inviting media along, and the media may even be in violation of the the subject’s Constitutional rights (intrusion)

72
Q

Wilson v. Layne

A

media ride-alongs violate the Fourth Amendment

73
Q

Bartnicki v. Vopper

A

the information Vopper received was obtained legally and of public concern because Bartnicki made a domestic threat

74
Q

Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA)

A

criminalizes the interception of oral messages as well as those sent by cell, satellite, and email communications

75
Q

video voyeurism

A

it is illegal to video someone undressing or in a compromising position without their knowledge

76
Q

anti-paparazzi laws

A

only in California
constructive invasion of privacy that published the use of any visual or auditory enhancing devices
penalty is triple actual damages

77
Q

drone journalism

A

refers to “unmanned aerial vehicles” or “unmanned aerial systems” where they cannot fly higher than 400 feet and remain below any surrounding obstacles
drones must be in eyesight at all times
do not interfere with manned aircraft operations or intentionally fly over unprotected persons and vehicles

78
Q

Riley v. California

A

police searched Riley’s phone during a traffic stop, leading to his arrest
USSC stated that a warrant required by the Fourth Amendment is still required and can be obtained with increasing efficiency

79
Q

Carpenter v. US

A

the government needs a warrant to obtain historical CSLI records

80
Q

summary judgment

A

asks the judge to decide the case on the bases of pretrial

81
Q

demurrer

A

asks the court to reject a complaint because it is legally insufficient
federal courts don’t allow this

82
Q

defenses of defamation

A

statute of limitation, truth, fair comment, consent, fair report, New York Times Standard

83
Q

Farmers Education and Cooperative Union v. WDAY

A

USSC ruled that broadcasters are immune from liability for defamation by political candidates in political ads

84
Q

Beauharnais v. Illinois

A

USSC ruled that defamation directed at ethnic and racial groups can be illegal even when it is not directed at a specific individual

85
Q

Neiman-Marcus Co. v. Lait

A

a court ruled that identification can occur when defamation is aimed at a small group

86
Q

Cosgrove Studio and Camera v. Pane

A

identification can occur when the person/business is not specifically named in the defamatory statement

87
Q

Garrison v. Louisiana

A

state governments cannot censor critics of the government without due process
declared criminal libel unconstitutional

88
Q

New York Times v. Sullivan

A

USSC declared that public officials may recover for defamation upon proof of actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth

89
Q

Rosenblatt v. Baer

A

“public official” criteria was designated to include those in the hierarchy of government employees who have substantial responsibility for the conduct of government affairs

90
Q

Walker v. AP

A

AP reported a false story about Major Walker encouraging violence
USSC declared courts will seek to determine whether a journalist had, or should have had, serious doubts about the truth of defamatory statements

91
Q

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts

A

the media had plenty of time to verify the facts of the story, but didn’t

92
Q

Goldwater v. Ginzburg

A

US Court of Appeals ruled that creating false statements to support one’s predetermined view is evidence of actual malice

93
Q

Cohen v. New York Herald

A

New York court ruled that “mere exaggeration, irony, or wit” does not make an article defamatory
parody is protected

94
Q

Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler

A

USSC stated that the use of words (such as “blackmail”) when used in a public forum, was determined to be non-actionable

95
Q

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia

A

the burden of proof imposed on public officials extends to anyone involved in a matter of public concern, regardless of whether they are famous or unknown

SMAD 450 (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions