Media law and ethics Lesson 10

Punitive

Punitive describes inflicting a punishment. 

Presumed

Retraction

Retraction – takes back the story like if a news agency taking back a story

Damages: what plaintiffs ask for (and why it matters)

•Actual damages: harm to reputation, emotional harm, economic loss

•Presumed/punitive damages: tightly limited in many contexts

•Retractions/corrections can change risk and optics

Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED): the basics

•Elements (simplified): extreme/outrageous conduct + intent/recklessness + severe distress + causation

•Temptation: use IIED when defamation is hard to prove

•Courts guard against that workaround in speech cases

Hard to prove mental health issues/emotional distress.

If you have a doctor’s note proving psychiatric harm - maybe

Elements of IIED

extreme/outrageous conduct

intent/recklessness

severe distress

causation

Snyder v Phelps: IIED

The Court held that speech made in a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is viewed as offensive or outrageous.

Supreme Court said that the protestors who were saying horrible things outside of court/his funeral just because it causes the father emotional distress-cause if they can say that somewhere else, it shouldn’t be supressed in front of a church- it would be unconstitutional to suppress speech.

•Protects sharp-edged parody and political humour

Practical: label satire, but don’t rely on the label alone

_______ _______ cannot recover for IIED without proving a false statement made with _______ _______

Public figure cannot recover for IIED without proving a false statement made with actual malice

Snyder v. Phelps: offensive speech on public issues

•Speech on a matter of public concern gets strong protection

•Context matters: location, compliance with law, target audience

•Ethics: legality ≠ kindness (we still discuss harm)

Tool: “Public concern” quick test (class discussion)

•Topic: is it political, social, community, institutional?

•Audience: is it aimed at public debate or private shaming?

•Form/context: protest, op-ed, private message, leak?

Task Consideration

“Local activist Lina Hassan is a fraud who lies about donations. Everyone knows she pockets money and manipulates young volunteers. Her behavior is disgusting and it’s ruining the community.”

Student task:
1) Circle statements that look like verifiable facts vs pure opinion.
2) Rewrite into 3–4 sentences that (a) names evidence, (b) separates allegations from conclusions, (c) adds right-of-reply.
3) Add one sentence: “What would you document in your evidence log?”

Model rewrite (one possible good answer):
“Several former volunteers told the newsroom they were concerned about how donations were handled at Lina Hassan’s organization, but they did not provide financial records. Hassan did not respond to two emailed requests for comment by publication time. We are seeking publicly available filings and will update this story if documentation becomes available. (Optional: remove the ‘fraud’ label unless and until a reliable record supports it.)”

Good answers:
- Removes conclusory crime label (“fraud”) unless supported.
- Adds attribution to sources and states limits of evidence.
- Adds right-of-reply and ongoing reporting plan.
- Avoids “everyone knows” and “disgusting” as the spine of the claim.