Media Law and Ethics Test Review

Study Notes for Media Law and Ethics Test 2

Overview

  • Test Date: November 3

  • Key Topics: Libel, Obscenity, Defamation, First Amendment Rights

Important Amendments

  • 10th Amendment: Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states.

Case Law

The "Heed Their Rising Voices" case is famously known as the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). 

The key takeaway is that the case established a high standard for public officials to sue for libel, significantly strengthening the protection for freedom of speech and the press in the United States. 

Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey (1998)

  • Background: Texas cattle ranchers sued Oprah Winfrey under the state’s False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act.

Libel Law

Libel Definitions

  • Libel per se: Statements that are inherently damaging, with no defense available.

Landmark Cases

  • New York Times v. Sullivan:

    • Changed libel law in the U.S.

    • Represented a strong defense of press freedom.

    • Elected officials must meet a high bar to win a libel case.

    • Defining malice vs. negligence is crucial.

Negligence vs. Actual Malice

  • Negligence: A failure to exercise reasonable care. Easier to prove than actual malice.

  • Definition: Reckless disregard for the truth.

    • Acceptability in TV reporting differs from social media standards.

The Butts Case

  • The Supreme Court upheld a libel award of 460,000 to Butts, citing “highly unreasonable conduct” indicative of negligence.

The Walker Case

  • Extended the protections from New York Times v. Sullivan, requiring public figures to prove actual malice.

Landmark Parody Case

  • Involved the Supreme Court’s reversal of a decision requiring Falwell to prove actual malice; there were no factual statements involved, only parody.

  • Hustler magazine's freedom of press was upheld.

The Ollman Test

  • To determine if a statement is considered opinion or fact, consider:

    • Context: Was it in a publication, website, or broadcast where opinions are common?

    • Assumption of Fact: Was it stated in a context where statements are treated as factual?

Wire Service Defense

  • Media organizations can be protected from libel suits based on defamatory info in wire service reports if they had no reason to suspect falsehood.

SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

  • Defamation suits used to harass or silence critics, typically filed in bad faith with low success rates in court.

Critical Elements in Libel Cases

  1. Statement of Fact: An assertion that can be proven true or false.

  2. Publication: The defamatory statement must be circulated to readers or listeners.

  3. Identification: The plaintiff must prove the statement was about them.

Historical Context of Obscenity Law

Anthony Comstock

  • Launched an anti-obscenity movement through the Society for the Suppression of Vice, pushing for bans on certain materials.

U.S. v. One Book Called Ulysses (1933)

  • Federal District Court addressed free expression, ruling no prurient effect on average readers regarding the novel Ulysses.

Roth Test

  • The Supreme Court ruled the dominant theme must appeal to an average person's prurient interest in sex.

  • Outcome: Hicklin standard was overturned by SCOTUS stating nothing was obscene if not appealing to prurient interests.

Miller v. California (1973)

  • Significance: States and local governments were left to define obscenity, rather than a national standard.

New York v. Ferber

  • States can prohibit child pornography. Such material is not protected by the First Amendment if it involves minors under the age of 16.

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation

  • Supreme Court ruling on indecency regulations.

  • It is not a First Amendment violation to restrict indecent content on airwaves during hours when children might be listening.

The Future of Law and Technology

  • The American Bar Association acknowledges the overwhelming influence of technology in accessing explicit content online, raising questions about regulation.

Presidential Commissions on Obscenity

Lockhart Commission

  • Concluded that pornography viewing had no harmful effects and recommended eliminating penalties.

  • Implemented under Lyndon Johnson, rejected by Nixon.

Meese Commission

  • Found a connection between porn and sex crimes, advocating for stricter policies on pornography under Reagan.

Library Access to Online Materials

  • U.S. v. American Library Assn.: Supreme Court ruled Congress could require public libraries to filter online access as a condition for funding.

Legal Challenges in Defining Obscenity

  • Justice Potter Stewart’s statement: “I know it when I see it” highlights difficulties in defining obscenity legally.

Variable Obscenity

  • The concept that material might not be considered obscene for adults but would be for minors.

Carey v. Population Services International (1977)

  • Addressed First Amendment implications regarding birth control information, extending protection to contraceptive advertisements.