Comm. Law Test 3 Terms

Defamation

a legal claim involving injury to a person's reputation caused by a false statement of fact. An expression that damages a person's standing in the community through words that attack a person's character or professional abilities.

Libel

historically written or printed defamation

Slander

historically spoken defamation

single instant rule

A statement related to business and occupation is not defamatory, and there is no proof of specific monetary loss. Some states use this to limit libel suits.

Production disparagement/trade libel

a statement defaming the quality or usefulness of a product, rather than the company itself. The plaintiff in this case must prove the statement was published with either common-law malice (intent to do harm) or actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth)

Defamation "per se"

§ when a statement is automatically considered damaging under these categories:

1. Committed a serious crime involving moral turpitude

2. Has a loathsome disease (or is mentally ill)

3. A charge that attacks the plaintiff's competence or honesty in business (financial irresponsibility)

4. Committed a serious sexual misconduct

innocent construction rule

Language should be considered nondefamatory if it can be read that way. Some states have adopted this

innuendo

subtler defamatory

Libel per quod

Innuendo defamation when libel is only apparent to those who know facts not directly included. Only apparent from the context or circumstances.

Substantial truth doctrine

The statement does not have to be perfectly accurate. It must only be true in its overall meaning.

Republication Rule

Anyone who repeats or republishes a defamatory statement can be held liable for defamation, even if they weren't the original speaker.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Internet service providers are not liable for content posted by users, except criminal content

All-Purpose Public Figures

People with special prominence in society. Those who exercise general power or influence. People who occupy a position of continuing news value.

Limited Public Figures

people who inject themselves into a public controversy to affect its outcome and/or have access to channels of effective communication. Someone is classified as one if they:

1) If the defamation statement is involved in a public controversy

2) if the plaintiff has voluntarily participated in the discussion of that controversy

3) The plaintiff has to affect the outcome of the controversy.

Presumed Damages

The defendant must pay for the loss of reputation that the defamatory language is presumed to cause

Actual Damages

awards of proven loss of good name, shame, humiliation, and stress

special damages

compensation for the loss of revenue and other out-of-pocket losses resulting from defamation. Requires proof.

Punitive Damages

awards imposed not to compensate, but to punish the defendant and deter others from bad behavior

Libel-proof plaintiff

people whose reputation is so bad that no words of defamation could harmfully affect them

Incremental Harm

allows plaintiffs to win libel suits if they have a terrible reputation, as long as there is new harm

Absolute Privilege

complete immunity for certain language in protected settings where we want people to speak without fear, even if the statement is false or made with malicious intent (Ex: judicial proceedings, legislative sessions, executive actions, spousal communication)

fair report privilege

protects a person, usually the press, for fair and accurate reporting of what is said in a public official proceeding or public record.

Neutral Reportage

gives reporters the protection to publish the language as newsworthy if they knew it was false.

Anti-SLAPP statutes

state laws that provide a streamlined method for dismissing libel lawsuits that are filed in an attempt to subdue legitimate comment on public issues

Retraction Statutes

provides protection to the media if they are willing to retract defamatory publications

request-based closure

The public is allowed to ask for records, and the government must respond

Agency memoranda (internal privileged communications)

government discussions and advice do not have to be disclosed if they would protect legal privileges (ex: policy drafts, proposals, studies, and investigative reports)- one of the nine request-based disclosure exemptions

Proactive Disclosure

meetings or information must be made publicly available with a request

intrusion

an offensive physical, electronic, or mechanical invasion of a person's solitude or seclusion

Quasi-Public Property

privately owned property that is opened to the public for business or service. The public is invited or allowed in with some privacy expectations. (ex: restaurants, malls, airports)

Third-party monitoring

Recording a conversation to which you are not a party. Bugging, wiretapping, or eavesdropping on a conversation without the parties' knowledge

Government Monitoring

when the government issues a warrant based on probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance under the Fourth Amendment

Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986

permits one party to a conversation to record or transmit it without notifying the other party. (one-party consent)

All-party consent

All parties to a conversation must agree to recording

trespass

a physical invasion of someone's property without their consent, or a refusal to leave if consent is revoked