In-Class Presentation Cases Flashcards
Summarize the key parts of the case Robbins v. Lower Merion School District.
1) The Parties: The Robbins Family and the Lower Merion School District
2) The Conflict: The School District Installed Software that allowed for remote activation of welcomes on 2,000 high school students’ school issued laptops and used that software to spy on families without their consent.
3) The Question: Was this action an invasion of Robbins’ privacy?
4) The Court Ruled: It was. Robbins had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his own home and the school did not have probable cause to collect the images taken.
Summarize the key parts of the case Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz.
1) The Parties: Ehrenfeld and Mahfouz.
2) The Conflict: Ehrenfeld published a book about funding terrorism and mentioned and implicated Mahfouz in such activities.
3) The Question: Was Ehrenfeld’s Statement Libel? Moreover, which court should decide the verdict: U.S. or U.K.?
4) The Court Ruled: In the U.K., against Ehrenfeld. In the U.S., that the U.K. Court had judgement rights and upheld their decision. The SPEECH Act retroactively voided this judgement.
Summarize the key parts of the case Monteiro v. The Tempe Union High School District.
1) The Parties: Kathy Monteiro and the Tempe Union High School District.
2) The Conflict: Monteioro claimed reading Huckleberry Finn and A Rose for Emily psychologically damaged her daughter and petitioned that the books me removed from the mandatory reading list.
3) The Question: Does a Student Have a First Amendment Right to Access Information?
4) The Court Ruled: Schools cannot be held civilly liable for their curriculum book lists. Moreover, content based restrictions on readings violate the First Amendment based on the precedent in Pico.
Summarize the key parts of the case F.A.A. v. Cooper.
1) The Parties: The Federal Aviation Administration and Stanmore Cawthon Cooper.
2) The Conflict: Cooper was charged with making false statements to the FAA after the SSA released medical records that revealed Cooper hid his HIV from the FAA. Cooper sued the FAA for emotional distress as a result of having that private information leaked.
3) The Question: Are government records subject to invasion of privacy statutes when given to other government branches?
4) The Answer: The Court Didn’t Decide on this issue. Essentially, the Court held that Cooper could only recover for proven pecuniary or economic harm. He could not recover damages for emotional distress.
Summarize the key parts of Garcia v. Google Inc.
1) The Parties: Cindy Lee Garcia (Actor) Google Inc. (Published) and Mark Youssef (Director)
2) The Conflict: Youssef published a video on YouTube titled that was incredibly controversial in Muslim communities. This video included a clip from another of Youssef’s films that involved Garcia. Garcia petitioned YouTube for removal of the video under copyright infringement after she received multiple death threats.
3) The Question: Was publishing the Clip of Garcia without her consent in this new video an infringement of copyright law?
4) The Answer: The Court ruled that it did not constitute copyright infringement and allowed the video to remain up.
Summarize the key parts of Sandals Resorts v. Google
1) The Parties: An Anonymous G-Mail User, Sandals Resorts, and Google.
2) The Conflict: An anonymous g-mail user sent e-mail alleging that Sandals did not treat its local employees in Jamaica fairly. Sandals sued to get Google to give over the information needed to identify the user who sent out those e-mails for a libel suit.
3) The Question: Does Google have to give over the private information of an anonymous g-mail account for the purposes of a libel suit.
4) The Court Ruled: No. In this case Sandals did not prove a prima facia case for libel. Moreover, the Court held the statements in the e-mail were not libelous, thus, Google did not have to turn over such information.
Summarize the key parts of The Colorado Independent v. District Court for the 18th Judicial District of Colorado.
1) The Parties: Sir Mario Owens (The Person Convicted) The Colorado Independent (Seeking to Unseal Documents) The District Court (Seeking to Keep the Documents Sealed)
2) The Conflict: The court proceedings that showed evidence of prosecutorial misconduct were sealed. The Colorado Independent petitioned to unseal the records and were denied by the District Court and State Supreme Court.
3) The Question: Do Newspapers have a right to Court Documents under the First Amendment?
4) The Court Ruled: The Court didn’t. There is no universal right of access to all court documents for the press. However, the Court did not apply the Press-Enterprise Test to determine if the Colorado Independent had First Amendment access in this case.
Summarize the key parts of Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC.
1) The Parties: Three UVA students and Rolling Stone.
2) The Conflict: Rolling Stone published a poorly fact-checked article about an assault of a female student at a UVA fraternity that turned out to be false.
3) The Question: Did the publication constitute Libel?
4) The Court Ruled: Yes. Two of the three students were identified in the article and could sue for damages.
