Libel & Privacy Flashcards
Hornby v. Hunter (1964)
- Publication is virtually assumed in mass media defamation cases
- If a statement is published or broadcast (it is presumed that a third party saw or heard it)
Allied Marketing Group Inc. v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (2003)
Sweepstakes Clearing House vs. real entity “Sweepstakes Clearinghouse”
- The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that a publication is “of and concerning” the plaintiff if persons who knew or were acquainted with the plaintiff believed that the libelous material referred to the plaintiff.
- Helpful for: explicit identification; even if there’s small differences between the name of the plaintiff and the name used in the alleged defamatory message.
Hanks v. Wavy Broadcasting (2012)
This case is an example where identification was NOT met/determined.
- Case details: Timothy Hanks was the president of a tax preparation company and the business was mentioned in an article on corrupt tax preparers. Hanks sued for defamation, but the US District Court ruled that since Hanks was not mentioned in the story, the negative remarks were NOT “of and concerning him.”
- Legal Reasoning Used: a corporation or business can sue if it is defamed, but no employee or stockholder of the business is entitled to sue for personal defamation if only the company is identified.
Define Defamation
Communication that holds a person up to contempt, hatred, ridicule or scorn (CHRS); the harms from defamation. The plaintiff must prove that at least a significant representative minority of the community must believe the plaintiff’s reputation has been damaged.
– Must prove relational harms did occur and that they were directly caused by the defamatory content (content is capable and does in fact convey a defamatory message).
Damon v. Moore (2008)
– As a matter of law, judge will first decide whether particular words are capable of conveying a defamatory meaning.
– In Damon, the court ruled that there was no way that a reasonable viewer could construe Damon’s remarks about his injuries as supporting Moore’s attack on the war and the president.
Howell v. Enterprise Publishing Co. (2008)
– If a judge rules that words are capable of a defamatory meaning, the fact finder–the jury or judge–then must determine whether the words in fact convey a defamatory meaning.
– A libel suit cannot be based on an isolated phrase wrenched out of context. The article as a whole must be considered.
– In Howell, the appeals court ruled that the allegation that a city–superintendent has stored “pornography” on the town computers would be defamatory, but that it was up to a jury to decide whether the images stored on the computers were in fact “pornographic.”
For the Falsity element, the plaintiff must normally prove?
That the damaging statements are false.
– The first rule of proving truth or falsity is that the evidence presented must go to the heart of the libelous charge (the libelous “sting”). The proof must be direct and explicit. Court is looking for substantial truth.
– The gist, or sting, of the statement must be false. Isolate the words that harm the plaintiff’s reputation. Are these words true or false? If true, no libel. If false, the element is met and the suit continues.
– Minor errors, unless they relate directly to the gist of the libel, will not usually result in a finding of falsity.
Fleckstein v. Friedman (1934)
Test for Falsity: Jurors presented with both the libelous untruthful statement about the plaintiff and the truth about the plaintiff. The untruthful statement will leave a certain impression about the plaintiff in the juror’s minds. Does learning the truthful statement change that impression?
Fleckstein court said: “a workable test of truth is whether the libel as published would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.”
Jones v. Palmer Communication (1989)
Case details: a firefighter in Iowa was fired because, fire officials said, he had failed to pass a written emergency medical technician exam, a requirement to hold the job. The Fire chief told reporters that the man had a reading problem–that despite undergoing tutoring at taxpayers’ expense, he was still capable of reading at only the third-grade level.
Legal reasoning: there were two errors in the story, perhaps only details, but they were the details that carried a libelous sting. First, the firefighter had himself paid paid a substantial portion of the cost of the tutoring. More important, the test showed he read at the level comparable with the lower one third or community college student. Since the details that harmed his reputation were the facts that were NOT substantially true… he won on falsity.
For the Fault element, the plaintiff must normally prove?
That the defendant was somehow at fault in publishing the defamatory material–that the publication did not result from an innocent error.
Public officials & Public figures must prove?
That the defendant acted with actual malice in publishing the libel: that is, the defendant knew the material was false but still published it or exhibited reckless disregard for the truth.
Private figures must prove?
At least that the defendant acted negligently, that is, is such a way as to create an unreasonable risk of harm or with failure to exercise reasonable care. Private figures are legally defined by negative definition: they do not meet the limited-purpose public figure test. Private figures are considered more vulnerable than public officials/figures, thus more deserving of protection.
Falwell v. Flynt/Hustler v. Falwell (1986/88)
(emotional distress)
Falwell v. Flynt / Hustler v. Falwell (1986/88)
(emotional distress)
Falwell v. Hustler / Hustler v. Falwell (1986/88)
(rhetorical hyperbole)
