Understanding Defamation and Obscenity Laws

Libel Law

Libel law is a civil legal action. Plaintiffs sue for monetary damages, not jail time.

Federal Libel Law

No, all defamation laws exist at the state level. However, federal courts (including the Supreme Court) can rule on the constitutionality of those state laws.

Actionable Libel

The five elements of actionable libel are: Identification, Publication, Defamation, Falsity, and Fault.

Identification

The defamatory statement is about the plaintiff.

Publication

The statement was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff.

Defamation

The statement harms reputation.

Falsity

The statement must be false.

Fault

Ranges from negligence to actual malice.

Libel per se

Libel per se refers to statements that are inherently defamatory, requiring no proof of harm.

Examples of Libel per se

Examples include calling someone a criminal, accusing someone of having a loathsome disease, attacking someone's business/profession, or 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

Truth, Consent, and Section 315 are absolute defenses to defamation.

Truth

Complete defense, but can be hard to prove.

Consent

If the plaintiff agreed to the publication, there's no case. Best to get in writing.

Section 315

Under political broadcast law, broadcasters can't be held liable for libelous statements made by political candidates during broadcasts.

Qualified Defenses

Qualified privilege and Opinion defense are examples of qualified defenses.

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

Publishing a statement with knowledge it's false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Fault Continuum

Actual malice is the highest level of fault; negligence is lower.

Libel for 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 where the Court ruled that public officials must prove actual malice to win libel suits.

Butts & Walker Cases

Extended the actual malice standard to public figures, not just public officials.

Negligence for Private Individuals

Private individuals are more vulnerable to defamation and usually don't have media access to respond, so they only need to prove negligence unless seeking punitive damages.

Gertz v. Welch (1974)

Established that private individuals don't need to prove actual malice to recover damages, but must for punitive damages.

Public figure

Someone who has gained prominence in society, which can be categorized into all-purpose, limited-purpose, and involuntary public figures.

All-purpose public figure

A celebrity or someone well-known in all contexts.

Limited-purpose public figure

An individual known in specific contexts or controversies.

Involuntary public figure

Someone who becomes prominent unwillingly, which is rare.

Herbert v. Lando

Court ruled that libel plaintiffs can inquire about the editorial process to prove actual malice.

Actual malice

A legal standard that requires proof of a defendant's mindset and intent in defamation cases.

Opinion defense

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

Milkovich case

Established that simply saying 'in my opinion' does not protect a statement if it implies defamatory facts.

Masson v. New Yorker

Court ruled that 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.

Hicklin Rule

Introduced by Regina v. Hicklin (1868), it allowed works to be declared obscene based on whether any part could corrupt the most vulnerable.

Miller v. California

The case that established the current obscenity test, replacing the Roth-Memoirs test.

Miller Test

A 3-part test to decide if something is legally obscene: 1) Appeals to prurient interest, 2) Depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, 3) Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (SLAPS).

Prurient interest

An unhealthy or shameful interest in sex, which 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 and Stanley

Stanley does not apply to child pornography; possession of child porn is not protected, even in the home.

Evidence of serious value

Prosecutors must present evidence that a work lacks serious value; the government must show that a reasonable person would find the work lacks SLAPS value.

SLAPS value determination

Determined by a reasonable person; the distinction is that 'average person' applies to community standards, while SLAPS is an objective national standard.