Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Defamation
Not protected by first amendment
an expression that tends to damage a persons reputation and good name, or right to enjoy social contacts, or a profession, business or calling.
Libel: written or printed defamation
Slander - spoken defamation
Criminal Libel
Government statutes that punish criticism of government
Civil Libel
Lawsuit between private parties
Libel Per Se
the words are criticizing on their face, questioning someones chastity
Libel Per Quod
The libel that is in the context of other words, it is buried in the story
Trade Libel
You state a product is bad, and therefore it is defamatory to the business
Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof
Defamation
Identification
Publication
Fault: Publication was result of recklessness of negligence (this is where we argue)
Strict Liability (pre-1964)
No finding of negligence required and if a damaged reputation resulted from a publication, there was liability
Public Official
Someone like Donald Trump
The degree of fault I have to prove is actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth
All-Purpose public figure
Someone like Beyonce
They have to prove actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (same as public official)
Limited or Vortex Public Figure
Someone who has done something of recognition to the public
They have to prove actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth
Private Individuals
Everyday person
Lower burden of proof in court
You only have to prove negligence
Falsity
A burden only for persons suing for defamation related to matters of public concern
Personal Harm
Loss of business, emotional distress, or reputation
Typically financial
Plaintiff’s use of SLAPP
Strategic lawsuits against public participation
Big business goes after a little guy to drain their finances
Used by plaintiff’s to harass their critics into silence. Create a “chilling effect.” Cases rarely won with this tactic
States have passed Anti-SLAPP statutes
State says we are going to legislate against this action by those large businesses.
The little guy is protected financially
Actual Malice
Must be Proven by Public officials and public figures
Known as the New York Times Standard
Negligence
Standard of proof for private individuals
May result from failure to try and contact person being defamed, lack of effort to verify sources, and/or disregarding for contradictory evidence
Damages
Compensatory/general/actual damages (presumed in Libel per Se)
Special (must be established)
Punitive/exemplary or “smart money” damages (tied to degree of malice
Nominal damages
Summary Judgement
Asks the judge to decide the case on the basis of pretrial submissions when neither party disputes the underlying facts
Demurrer
Asks the court to reject a complaint because it is legally insufficient. Federal courts do not allow it and 3 states still have it - CA, PA, and VA. The truth of the charges are not challenged; its whether the plaintiff has enough facts to go to trial
Defendants Defenses (Reckless Disregard for the truth)
Statute of limitations
Truth - (Provable with justification and without malice)
Expression not provably false
Fair comment - conditional (when you are at a public event and you are offering critique)
Lose condition
If comments are not about public matter
If comments aren’t supported by facts
Consent
Fair report - absolute (privilege of the participant) with the legislative, judicial and executive branches
Fair report - conditional - fair and accurate reporting
lose condition
report is not fair & accurate
News source isn’t cited in story
New York Times standard
Innocent construction rule in some states, eg. Illinois
Section 230
Neutral Reportage
Single-publication rule
republication
Wire service/web
reputation of news-gathering agency
didnt know story was false
nothing to alert defendant as to falsity of information
republication without substantial change
Defendants Defenses (opinion pieces)
Expression not provably False
Ollman v. Evans (DC 1984 - “Ollman Test”)
Verifiable
Common/ordinary meaning
Journalistic context
social context
Parody/Rhetorical hyperbole (protected)
Ex. SNL
Preventing Libel Suits
Handle complaints
Retractions
Farmers Education and Cooperative Union v. WDAY (1959)
Facts: W.C. Townley, a colorful independent candidate for the U.S. Senate from North Dakota, accused the FECUA of being controlled by communists over WDAY
Importance: The U.S. Supreme Court declared that broadcasters are immune from liability for defamation by political candidates in political ads
Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) - Group Libel Law
Facts: Beauharnais distributed racist literature. He was prosecuted under a Illinois group libel statute
Importance: The U.S. Supreme court ruled that defamation directed at ethnic and racial groups can be illegal even when it is not directed at a specific individual
Group libel law was dropped right after this decision, however, they did say in the future they could make a law against it
Neiman-Marcus Co. v. Lait (1952)
Facts: In a book, U.S.A Confidential, it was asserted that the women working at the Neiman-Marcus department store in Dallas were “hookers” and the men in menswear were “fairies”
Importance: A court ruled identification can occur when defamation is aimed at a small group
Cosgrove Studio and Camera v. Pane (1962)
Facts: Cosgrove ran an ad promising customers a free roll of film for every roll brought in for processing. Pane warned readers in his ad. “You get nothing for nothing”
Importance: Identification can occur even when the person/business is not specifically named in the defamatory statement
Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) - Criminal Libel
Facts: Jim Garrison, the district attorney for New Orleans Parish, attacked judges stating they were lazy, “vacation-minded,” and sympathetic to criminals
Importance: USSC said state governments can’t censor critics of the government without due process and that the role of the citizen critic of the government. Must be protected by the First Amendment. FOr all practical purposes declared criminal libel unconstitutional
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Importance: USSC declared that public officials may recover for defamation upon proof of actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. This established the “New York Times Standard”
Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966)
Facts: Rosenblatt, a reporter, wrote a story critical of the manner that a county-owned ski resort was managed by Baer.
Importance: USSC ruled that the “Public Official” criteria was designated to include those in the hierarchy of government employees who have substantial responsibility of the conduct of government affairs
Walker v. A.P. (1967) - Good Journalistic Technique
Facts: A.P. reported that retired army officer Major General Edwin Walker encouraged violence and led a charge against federal marshals during the integration of the University of Mississippi in 1962
Importance: USSC declared courts will seek to determine whether a journalist had, or should have had serious doubts about the truth of defamatory statements. Element of time to check and verify sourcers is very important in this case
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) - Bad Journalistic Technique
Facts: The Saturday Evening Post reported that Georgia football coach Wally Butts fixed a football game with Alabama. The Post relied on the unsupported testimony of a check forager
Importance: USSC declared that they will examine the credibility of sources, believability of the defamatory allegations and the effort made to investigate the statements in questions. The media had plenty of time to verify the facts of this story, but didn’t
Goldwater v. Ginzburg (1969) - Shows that a public official can win a defamation case and meet the New York Times Standard
Facts: Ralph Ginzburg, editor of Fact, asserted Goldwater suffered from a mental disease. In a second article he edited responses to a mail survey from psychiatrists to distort the comments about Goldwater
Importance: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that creating false statements to support one’s predetermined view is evidence of actual malice
Cohen v. New York Herald Tribune (1970)
Facts: Jimmy Breslin wrote a satirical article on a mob hit that was witnessed by Cohen.
Importance: A New York court ruled that “mere exaggeration, irony or wit” does not make an article defamatory.
Greenbelt Cooperative Pub. Assn. v. Bresler (197)) - Innocent construction case
Facts: The Greenbelt News Review wrote a story in which Bresler, a land developer, was charged with blackmail because he offered to sell land to the city only after the city rezoned a different parcel he owned.
Significance: The USSC stated that the use of words, such as “blackmail,” when used in a public forum was determined to be non-actionable.
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971)
Facts: George Rosenbloom, a little known businessman, was arrested for selling obscene material. News of his arrest was aired over the radio
Importance: The USSC ruled that the burden of proof imposed on public officials extends to anyone involved in a matter of public concern, regardless of whether they were famous or unknown.
Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron (1971)
Facts: Leonard Damron, running for the office of mayor of Crystal River, Florida, was falsely reported by the Star-Banner of having been charged with perjury.
Importance: The 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.
Gertz v. Welch (1974)
Facts: Elmer Gertz, an attorney, was libeled by an American Opinion article. The magazine charged that Gertz has engineered a “frame-up” of a policeman convicted for - see slides
Importance: The USSC defined a public figure as one who thrusts oneself into the public arena involuntarily or assumes a role voluntarily in which publication is expected or assumed. States may define the level of proof for a private person.
Time v. Firestone (1976)
Facts: Mrs. Firestone sued Time after a “Milestones” item incorrectly reported that Russell Firestone had won a divorce on the grounds “of extreme cruelty of adultery.”
Importance: The USSC ruled that Mrs. Firestone did not assume any role of special prominence in the affairs of society
Herbert v. Lando (1979)
Facts: A 1873 “60 minutes” broadcast questioned allegations by Colonel Anthony Herbert of an official cover-up of atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam.
Importance: The USSC held that a journalist’s mind may be probed in a libel case in order to establish actual malice.
Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association (1979)
Facts: Ilya Wolston refused to testify in 1958 before a federal grand jury investigating Soviet spy activities. Reader’s Digest Reported this event 20 years later on a story concerning famous spy cases
Importance: The USSC said that Wolston did not thrust himself into the forefront of the controversy, but was “dragged unwillingly” into the spotlight
Gazette v. Harris (1985)
Facts: This litigation involved three cases:
Misidentification of sex offender
Misidentification of married, pregnant, sexual assault victim as “Miss”
Misidentification of a child’s accidental death as a case of abuse
Significance: The Virginia State Supreme Court Declared negligence is the legal standard of proof for private individuals - finish on ppt.
Dun and Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985)
Facts: Greenmoss Builders, a construction company, had a credit-reporting agency falsely say that the company had filed for bankruptcy. In reality an employee of D & B confused records of a former Greenmoss employee with the firm.
Importance: The USSC held that credit reports are a private matter and not a matter of “public concern.”
Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps (1986)
Facts: A corporation that franchised a chain of Thrify stores sued the Philadelphia Inquirer for linking the chain of organized crime.
Importance: The USSC stated that private individuals seeking damages on matters of public concern have the burden of proving that the offending statements are false
Overturned laws in 8 States.
Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989)
Facts: The Hamilton (Ohio) Journal News published a front-page story charging a judicial candidate, Daniel Connaughton, with planning blackmail and promising favors for help in smearing his opponent.
Significance: The USSC ruled that this newspaper made a deliberate decision not to acquire knowledge that would have revealed that falsity of charges against connaughton
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal (1990) - provable opinion
Facts: The News-Herald published a sports column stating wrestling coach Michael Milkovich had lied under oath to the Ohio Athletic Commission concerning his role in a right that broke out during a wrestling match.
Significance: The USSC held that fact-based opinions expressed in editorials do not enjoy special protection under the First Amendment
Fact based opinions must be proved
Masson v. New Yorker (1991)
Facts: Freudian scholar Jeffrey Masson sued New Yorker author Janet Malcolm for falsely quoting him as calling himself an “intellectual gigolo” and “the greatest analyst who ever lived.”
Significance: The USSC ruled that minor changes in quotations fail to constitute defamation. The plaintiff has a burden to show that the altered words substantially damages his/her reputation.
Four Torts of Privacy
appropriation/commercialization (right of publicity)
Ex. If you only promote coke and pepsi starts using your image
Commercialization of your image without your consent
False Light
Intrusion
Private or Embarrassing Facts (emotional distress)
History of Privacy
Privacy has largely developed in the 20th century
Concept originated in an 1890 Harvard Law Review article by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis.
Technology developed was key to privacy’s development
Appropriation/Commercialization
Definition: Using a person’s image or likeness (sound) for one’s purposes (commercial) without permission or compensation. May cause shame, humiliation or loss of revenue
Defenses:
Written Consent
Newsworthiness
Incidental Use
Ad for a mass medium
Plaintiffs Position
Name or likeness, picture, voice or identity
Without permission
For money
Very First Appropriation Case: Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (1902)
Facts: Franklin Mills Company used Abigail Roberson’s picture, without her permission, in advertisements for the company’s flour
Importance: Although Roberson lost, it motivated New York legislators to pass the first privacy statute.
Rights of Publicity (Emerging Tort)
Definition: Resides with the status of the person-celebrity status-revenue loss
Defense: Newsworthiness
Artistic Relevance Test: use celebrity to sell the product
Transformative Test: how much originality is in the works
Predominant Use Test: media put names in context for commercial purposes
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard (1977)
Facts: Hugo “The Human Cannonball” Zacchini had his entire act (15 seconds) broadcast by a Cleveland TV station without his permission
Importance: The USSC ruled that the media must make sure that permission is acquired in commercial situations
Carson v. Here’s Johnny (1983)
Facts: A portable toilet manufacturer used the phrase “Here’s Johnny” and “The World’s Foremost Commodian” in his advertisements without the permission of Johnny Carson
Importance: 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
The manufacturer tried again to use the phrase in 2010, but the court wouldn’t allow it.
Shields v. Gross (1983)
Facts: Brooke Shields's mother signed a release to a photographer to allow him to photograph Brooke at the age of 10 posing nude in a bathtub. At 17 Brooke tried to stop the publication of the photos.
Importance: A New York court declared that a signed model release is a very strong defense regardless of the time element
A parent’s consent is binding for a minor
Midler v. Ford (1988)
Facts: Ford Motor Company broadcast an ad with a singer who was hired because she sounded like Midler when she sang “Do You Want To Dance.”
Importance: A California court ruled that “Sound-Alikes” need to be legally cleared before undergoing a commercial venture
Cher v. Forum (1982)
Facts: Forum implied that Cher encourages others to join her as a subscriber to the magazine. This endorsement appeared on subscription cards without Cher’s permission
Importance: A New York court ruled that a magazine must secure permission to use a celebrity’s name in an endorsement.
Paulsen v. Personality Posters (1968)
Facts: A company sold posters of Pat Paulsen during his “comic” run as a presidential candidate
Importance: A New York court ruled that the newsworthiness of an event may override a claim of appropriation
The poster presented political commentary on a mock presidential campaign
False Light
Definition: The spreading of “highly offensive false publicity” with knowledge of a reckless disregard of the truth
Only tort recognized by the USSC
Plaintiffs Position
Material was published
Identification
Information was false
Highly offensive to a reasonable person
Defendant knew the info was false
Defenses
New York Times v. Sullivan: If the plaintiff is a public figure/official, the the plaintiff has to prove actual malice
Gertz v. Welch decision has not been applied to this tort
Time v. Hill (1967)
Facts: In 1952 convicts held the Hill family hostage in their home. Life (owns Time) reported in 1955 on a play based on this true crime. Pictures were taken in Hill’s ex-home and showed convicts as “brutish.”
Importance: New York Times v. Sullivan actual malice standard was applied by the USSC to the false-light privacy tort.
Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing (1974)
Facts: Joseph Eszterhas of the Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote a story about a bridge collapse. Five months after the accident he wrote an article containing an interview with Mrs. Cantrell - an interview that never occurred.
Importance: The USSC declared that falsifying quotes constitutes actual malice and fictionalization.
Uhl v. CBS (1979)
Facts: In a CBS documentary titled “Guns of Autumn,” CBS edited film footage to give the impression that Uhl was shooting geese on the ground.
In the state of PA it is illegal to shoot geese on the ground. However the edit made it appear this way.
Importance: A federal district court ruled that a hunter shooting birds on the ground is highly offensive to the average person in western Pennsylvania
Intrusion
Definition: The 4th Amendment protects private persons from intrusion from government - this tort protects a private person’s right to be left alone and control information about himself/herself.
Plaintiff’s Position
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Intentional Intrusion
Offensive to a Reasonable Person
Defenses
Public Places
Written Permission
False Pretenses
Galella v. Onassis (1972-82)
Facts: Ron Galella, a photographer, made a living stalking Mrs. Onasis.
Importance: A federal District court ruled that overzealous members of the media can be restrained and must be respectful of the moments of private intimacy.
Le Mistral v. CBS (1978)
Facts: Le Mistral was a restaurant that had received a poor bill of health from a health care official. CBS showed up one night with cameras disrupting the restaurant’s service.
Importance: 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
Florida Pub. Co. v. Fletcher (1975)
Facts: A photographer took pictures of a fire scene for a fire official. The next day the Florida Times-Union ran “Silhouette of Death.” Mother sued for intrusion
Importance: A Florida court determined that the doctrine of custom and usage protected the media because fire authorities had invited the media onto the property
Private or Embarrassing Facts
Definition: “published” information which is offensive to a “reasonable person” and/or is not of concern to the public
Defenses
Public Record
Newsworthiness
Written Consent
Sidis v. F & R Pub. Co. (1940)
Facts: As an 11 year-old, William J. Sidis gave lectures to the math department at Harvard. The New Yorker many years later wrote a story concerning Sidis’s sad, unfulfilled life.
Importance: The court determined that Sidis was still newsworthy after many years and had little or no claim to privacy
Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest (1972)
Facts: Marvin Briscoe participated in an unsuccessful hijacking attempt 11 years earlier. He served his time. Reader's Digest Reported this event in a story.
Importance: A federal district court ruled that Reader’s Digest had reported the information accurately and Briscoe was still newsworthy
Williams v. KCMO (1971)
Facts: KCMO had videotaped Williams' arrest on the street. Williams was not charged with a crime, but this arrest was aired on the 6pm news. 10pm news aired a tape, but announced no charges were placed by police.
Importance: A Missouri court declared that the newsworthiness of an event outweighed any privacy concerns in fast breaking news
Cape Pub. v. Bridges (1982)
Facts: Hilda Bridges sued a Fla. paper over publication of a photo of her without clothes, fleeing the apartment where her husband had just committed suicide
Importance: An appellate judge ruled that the newsworthiness of the situation outweighed any privacy claim
Sipple v. Chronicle Pub. (1984)
Facts: Oliver Sipple, a decorated Vietnam Vet, Saved president Ford’s life. His homosexuality was disclosed in follow-up newspaper stories.
Importance: A California Appellate court ruled that the newsworthiness of the event outweighed Sipple’s privacy claims.
Cases Already covered that apply (Private and Embarrassing Facts)
Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn (1975)
Florida Star v. BJF (1989)
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Emerging Tort)
Definition: Publication/broadcast of information which causes mental distress or physical harm to an individual through negligence
Defense
First Amendment
Newsworthiness
Consent
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)
Facts: A Campari-like ad in Hustler portrayed Falwell as an incestuous drunkard. This mock ad had a disclaimer in small print at the bottom of the ad.
Falwell was a pastor at a Baptist Church
Importance: The USSC held that a person can not sue for emotional distress when there has been no defamation or privacy invasion
Showed that parody is still protected in the area of privacy
Hyde v. City of Columbia (1982)
Facts: Sandra Hyde escaped from an abductor who was still at large. She received threats after the paper published her name and address.
Importance: A Missouri court ruled that a newspaper and the city could be sued for emotional distress.
Olivia N. v. NBC (1981)
Facts: NBC aired the movie “Born Innocent.” The movie contained an object rape scene. Shortly afterwards, four youths used a bottle to rape a young girl
Importance: A California court ruled that the media had not “incited” the harmful action.
Led to the disclaimers we see now on films and footage
Walt Disney v. Shannon (1981)
Facts: The Mickey Mouse Club demonstrated sound effects. A young boy lost his eye copying one of the sound effects
Importance: A Georgia court ruled that Walt Disney could not be sued for emotional distress
Braun v. Soldier of Fortune (1992) - Foreseeable Risk
Facts: Soldier of Fortune ran an ad for a “Gun for Hire.” Michael Savage, who ran the ad, was hired to kill Richard Braun.
Importance: A court held the magazine liable for the harmful effect of the ad. Court ruled that the ad had subjected the public to a “clearly identifiable, unreasonable risk of harm.”
Ride along intrusions
Popular on “reality programs”
Police may be liable for inviting media along
Media may even be in violation of subjects’ constitutional rights.
Wilson v. Layne (1999)
Facts: US Marshals entered the home of the Wilson’s in an effort to execute an arrest warrant for their son, Dominic, A reporter and a photographer from the Washington Post accompanied the Marshals
Importance: Media ride-alongs violate the Fourth Amendment
The marshals were entitled to qualified immunity because this principle of law was not established at the time of this ride-along.
Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001)
Facts: Gloria Bartnicki’s cell phone conversation was intercepted and taped by an unknown party. The tape was given to Vopper who played it on the air during his radio program.
ECPA
Outcome: The USSC ruled for Vopper
Significance: The Court ruled that the information was obtained legally and of public concern.
Legislation
Video Voyeurism
Anti-Paparazzi Law
“Drone Journalism”
Refers to “unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) or unmanned aerial systems (UAS)
No flying higher than 400 feet and remain below any surrounding obstacles
Keep your UAVs in eyesight at all times
Do not interfere with manned aircraft operations
Do not intentionally fly over unprotected persons and vehicles
Riley v. California (2014)
Facts: Riley was stopped for a traffic violation which led to his arrest. During this process the police searched him and searched the contents of his cell phone. The contents implicated him in a gang related murder and other crimes. Riley was conviced - finish
Outcome: The USSC ruled for Riley
Significance: The USSC stated that a warrant requirement by the Fourth Amendment is still required and can be obtained with increasing efficiency. In addition, “the search incident to arrest exception” does not specifically apply to cell phones.
Carpenter v. US (2018)
Facts: police used the Stored Communication Act as amended in 1994, that compels the disclosure of certain telecommunications records, e.g. Cell-Site Location Information (CSLI) to get cell records of Timmy Carpenter’s CSLI (finish)
Significance: The USSC ruled that using a subpoena to obtain CSLI information is not sufficient for law enforcement to require a search warrant.
First Amendment: New York Times v. Sullivan
One of the most important cases in freedom of the press
Ad in the New York times, Sullivan was mad at how it portrayed law enforcement at peaceful protests. (police chief) - he sued for Libel. Sullivan won the lawsuit due to some of the facts in the ad being inaccurate, and libel/defamation is not protected by the first amendment (at the local Montgomery Court), the case was appealed to the supreme court, the New York Times lawyers argued that if they are getting punished for publishing this information in the future the press will be fearful and deterred from publishing true information. They ruled that there was not enough information in the post to prove libel and in order to prove Libel you must prove actual malice, knowing falsity, or reckless disregard for falsity. Because the ad is considered an “open public debate” mistakes are common. Changed the entire law of libel - started as a result of the civil rights movement. Applies to government officials & public figures.
The Sad Story of the Smartest Man in History
Had an IQ 260, William James Sidis
At 8 years old he could speak 8 languages, 18 months read the New York Times
Invented the language of Vendergood”
Youngest person admitted to Harvard ever
He lectured his professors
He wanted to live a secluded life, never wanted fame or to be married
He has a feud with his father due to william wanting to live a normal life and did not attend his fathers funeral
Working a $100 a month job the newspapers noted that William lost his intelligence. William then became a Socialist.
He protested WW1 in Boston and got arrested, his parents bailed him out
He worked as a machine worker alone without contact from family and died in his late 40s
What are the rules to fly your drone in 2024?
Strictly for recreational purposes
If you are filming for the purpose of monetization then you have to follow another set of rules called Part 107
Part 107
Take a 60 question in person exam with the FAA and score at least a 70%
Follow community based organizational guidelines
You need to maintain visual line of sight
“Able to see”
Do not interfere with traditional aircraft
Get authorization to fly in controlled airspace
LAANC
Fly not higher than 400 ft above the ground (under recreational rules)
Except airports, where there is a different height limit
Take your trust test
Free training provided by the FAA
The Recreational Uas Safety Test
Valid forever
Register your drone with the FAA
Remote Identification
Don't Operate Dangerously
This libel case involves two private parties.
Civil Libel
This is the legal term for "spoken" defamation
Slander
Which of the following may constitute defamation.
Questioning A persons good name
Asserting a person has a social disease
harming a business with false accusations
Anti-SLAPP legislation attempts to protect _____________.
Activists
The Ollman Test is used to determine ______________.
Fact vs Opinion
Courts award ____________ damages when they want to punish the person responsible for defamatory comments.
Punitive
This court case defined all purpose and limited public figures.
Gertz v. Welch
This case defined "public official."
Rosenblatt v. Baer
This case shows that parody is protected from defamation litigation.This case shows that parody is protected from defamation litigation.
Cohen v. New York Herald Tribune
Gazette v. Harris established that the degree of fault for a private person in Virginia is __________.
Negligence
Note 
Flashcard (27)