Understanding Defamation and Libel Law

Libel law

A civil legal action where plaintiffs sue for monetary damages, not jail time.

Federal libel law

There is no federal libel law; all defamation laws exist at the state level.

Actionable libel

A plaintiff must convince the judge that an actionable libel has taken place before the case can go to trial.

Five elements of actionable libel

1. Identification - the defamatory statement is about the plaintiff. 2. Publication - the statement was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. 3. Defamation - the statement harms reputation. 4. Falsity - the statement must be false. 5. Fault - ranges from negligence to actual malice.

Actual malice

Knowing falsehood or reckless disregard and publishing it anyways.

Libel per se

Refers to statements that are inherently defamatory, requiring no proof of harm.

Examples of libel per se

1. Calling someone a criminal. 2. Accusing someone of having a loathsome disease. 3. Attacking someone's business/profession. 4. Calling a woman a prostitute.

Motion for summary judgment

A legal motion by the defense asking the judge to dismiss the case before trial, claiming the plaintiff hasn't met the burden to prove actionable libel.

Absolute defenses to defamation

1. Truth - Complete defense, but can be hard to prove. 2. Consent - If the plaintiff agreed to the publication, there's no case. 3. Section 315 - Under political broadcast law, broadcasters can't be held liable for libelous statements made by political candidates during broadcasts.

Qualified privilege

Applies to fair and accurate reports on official proceedings; if the report is not substantially true or accurate, the defense is lost.

Opinion defense

Opinions are protected, but only if they don't imply verifiable defamatory facts.

Statute of limitations in Florida

You must sue within two years; this is a defense unless rare exceptions apply.

Actual malice on the fault continuum

It's the highest level of fault; negligence is lower.

Libel against deceased individuals

Generally, no; most states do not allow libel suits for deceased individuals, although a few allow the estate to sue.

Time v. Sullivan (1964)

A landmark case ruling that public officials must prove actual malice to win libel suits.

Public officials and actual malice

The supreme court decided that public officials must prove actual malice, making it very hard for them to successfully sue.

Chilling effect

Avoiding self-censorship and creating 'breathing space' for free speech.

First amendment standard of fault

The first amendment demands a high standard of fault to protect free speech.

Actual Malice

A standard that requires proof of a defendant's knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.

Public Officials

Individuals who hold positions of authority in government and must prove actual malice to win defamation cases.

Public Figures

Individuals who have achieved prominence in society and must prove actual malice in defamation cases.

Private Individuals

Individuals who are not public figures and only need to prove negligence in defamation cases unless seeking punitive damages.

Negligence

A failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.

GERTZ v. WELCH (1974)

A case that established that private individuals don't need to prove actual malice to recover damages but must for punitive damages.

Breathing Space

The concept introduced to allow free speech to flourish without the fear of lawsuits.

Involuntary Public Figure

Someone who becomes prominent in a public controversy involuntarily.

Opinion Defense

A legal defense that protects statements of opinion unless they imply defamatory facts.

Hicklin Rule

A standard that allows works to be declared obscene based on whether any part could corrupt vulnerable individuals.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

The standard of proof required to establish actual malice in defamation cases.

Editorial Process Inquiry

The ability of libel plaintiffs to inquire about the editorial process to prove actual malice.

Masson v. New Yorker

A case that ruled journalists can alter quotes for clarity but not to change the meaning.

Standard of Proof for Actual Malice

Must be proven with clear and convincing evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Butts & Walker Cases

Cases that extended the actual malice standard to public figures, not just public officials.

Regina v. Hicklin (1868)

A British case that introduced the Hicklin Rule for determining obscenity.

Miller v. California

The case that established the current obscenity test.

Public Figure Definition

A person who can use the media to tell their side of the story.

Societal Recognition

A criterion for determining who qualifies as a public official.

Vulnerability to Defamation

Private individuals are more susceptible to defamation due to lack of media access.

Determination of Public Figure Status

Courts, not juries, in most states decide whether someone is a public figure or private individual.

Impact of Content

The effect of content matters in determining obscenity, not just the content itself.

Miller v. California

The case that established the current obscenity test in 1973.

Miller Test

A 3-part test to decide if something is legally obscene (not protected by the First Amendment).

Prurient interest

An unhealthy or shameful interest in sex; must be morbid or degrading.

Jenkins v. Georgia

Court ruled that nudity alone doesn't make a film obscene; 'Carnal Knowledge' was not obscene despite community outrage.

Stanley v. Georgia (1969)

Held that private possession of obscene material in the home is protected under the First Amendment.

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton

The Court did not extend Stanley's protection to public venues like adult theaters; obscenity can still be regulated outside the home.

Child pornography

Possession of child pornography is not protected, even in the home.

SLAPS value

Serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; the government must show that a reasonable person would find the work lacks SLAPS value.

Average person vs. reasonable person

The average person applies to community standards, while SLAPS is an objective national standard.

Time, place, and manner restriction

A rule that regulates when, where, or how someone can express themselves, without targeting what they are saying.

TPM test

Must be content neutral; regulations are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.

Strict Scrutiny test

Applies when government regulation goes after specific content.

Davis v. Massachusetts (1897)

A case that addressed the regulation of speech in public spaces; relevance today is questioned.

Obscenity

Material that appeals to the prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks SLAPS value.

Community standards

Local standards applied to determine if material is obscene.

Dominant theme

The overall theme of the material, taken as a whole, in determining obscenity.

Patently offensive

A standard defined by law that describes material that is sexually explicit in a way that is offensive.

Contemporary community standards

Standards that reflect the current values and norms of the local community.

Regulated speech

Speech that is subject to restrictions based on time, place, and manner.

Significant governmental interest

A legitimate reason for the government to impose restrictions on speech.

Alternative channels for communication

Options that must remain available for individuals to express their messages.

Obscene material

Material that fails to meet the criteria set by the Miller Test.

Local standards

Standards that are specific to a community, as opposed to national standards.

Massachusetts Court Ruling

The Court upheld a law that banned public speaking in Boston Common without a permit, stating the government could control speech on public property as if it were a private landowner.

Court's three-part test

The Court uses this test to see if a restriction is constitutional: 1. The restriction must be content neutral. 2. It must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. 3. It must leave open ample alternative channels for communication.

Grayned v. City of Rockford

The Court struck down part of a city ordinance that banned noise or demonstrations near a school during school hours, ruling it was too vague and could chill free speech.

Content neutral regulation

A content neutral regulation does not target the message or viewpoint being expressed and applies equally to all speech, regardless of what is being said.

Ward v. Rock Against Racism

The Court said that the government does not have to use the absolute least restrictive way to regulate speech, but the rule must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant interest.

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence

The majority ruled that the National Park Service could ban overnight sleeping in public parks, stating the rule was content neutral and allowed other forms of protest.

Types of public forums

1. Traditional public forums - places like sidewalks, streets, and parks. 2. Designated public forums - public property opened for speech, like community centers. 3. Nonpublic forums - places like military bases where speech can be more restricted.

Hurley case question

The question was whether private parade organizers in Boston could be forced to include a group whose message they did not agree with, and the Court ruled in favor of the parade organizers.

Tinker v. Des Moines

In Tinker, students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended; the Court ruled in favor of the students, affirming their First Amendment rights at school.