Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

SMAD 450 > Exam 2 > Flashcards

Exam 2 Flashcards

Defamation & Privacy (95 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

defamation

A

an expression that tends to damage a person’s reputation and good name

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

libel

A

written or printed defamation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

slander

A

spoken defamation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

criminal libel

A

government statutes that punish criticism of the government (has since been deemed unconstitutional)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

civil libel

A

lawsuit between private parties

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

libel per se

A

the words on their face are harmful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

libel per quod

A

the words are injurious in the context of other words (implication)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

trade libel

A

libel a product that a company invests a lot in

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

plaintiff’s burden of proof in a libel/defamation case

A

defamation
identification
publication
fault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

strict liability test

A

(prior to 1964) individual suing had to meet this
no finding of negligence required and if a damaged reputation resulted from a publication, there was a liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

fault for public official

A

prove actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (heavy burden)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

fault for private individuals

A

prove negligence or prove the media got some information wrong (low level)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

falsity

A

a burden only for persons suing for defamation related to matters of public concern

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

personal harm

A

loss of business, emotional distress, or reputation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

New York Times Standard (New York Times v. Sullivan)

A

killed the strict liability test - says that actual malice must be proven by public officials and public figures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

negligence

A

standard of proof for private individuals - may result from failure to try and contact the person being defamed, lack of effort to verify sources, and/or disregarding contradictory evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Ollman Test

A

used to determine fact vs opinion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron (1971)

A

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
emphasized the need to get information into the citizens’ hands before voting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Gertz v. Welch (1974)

A

courts defined what a public figure is (one who thrusts themself into the public arena involuntarily or assumes a role voluntarily in which publication is expected/assumed - Gertz was not a public figure)
states may define level of proof for a private person
defined all purpose and limited public figures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Time v. Firestone (1976)

A

USSC ruled that Mrs. Firestone did not assume any role of special prominence in the affairs of society (she was not a public figure just because she married one)
based on Gertz v. Welch

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Herbert v. Lando (1979)

A

Supreme Court held that a journalist’s mind may be probed in a libel case in order to establish actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association (1979)

A

USSC said that Wolston did not meet the definition under Gertz, but was “dragged unwillingly into the spotlight”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Gazette v. Harris (1985)

A

Virginia combined three cases and declared that negligence is the legal standard of proof for private individuals in the Commonwealth of Virginia (all decisions were upheld)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Dun and Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985)

A

USSC held that credit reports are a private matter and not a matter of “public concern”, so D&B only had to prove negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps (1986)
USSC stated that private individuals seeking damages on matter of public concern have the burden of proving that offending statements are false overturned laws in 8 states
26
Harte-Hanks Communication v. Connaughton (1989)
USSC ruled that the newspaper had made a "deliberate decision to not acquire knowledge" that would have revealed the falsity of charges against Connaughton
27
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal (1990)
provable-opinion case Supreme Court held that fact-based opinions expressed in editorials do not enjoy the special protection under the First Amendment
28
Masson v. New Yorker (1991)
ruled that minor changes in quotations fail to constitute defamation plaintiff has a burden of proof that the altered words substantially damage his/her reputation
29
four torts of privacy
appropriation/commercialization, false light, intrusion, and private or embarrassing facts
30
appropriation/commercialization
taking a person's image or likeness for one's own purposes without permission or compensation
31
defenses of appropriation/commercialization
written consent, newsworthiness, incidental use, or ad for a mass medium
32
Roberson v. Rochester Folder Box Co.
a company used Roberson's picture without her permission in adverstisements for the company's flour significance: motivated New York to pass the first privacy statute
33
right of privacy
resides with the status of the person-celebrity status-revenue its defense is newsworthiness
34
artistic relevance test
used celebrity to sell the product
35
transformative test
how much originality is in the work
36
predominant use test
media put names in context for commercial purposes
37
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard
Zacchini had his entire act broadcast by a Cleveland TV station without his permission USSC ruled that the media must make sure that permission is acquired in commercial situations
38
Carson v. Here's Johnny
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
39
Shields v. Gross
New York court ruled that a signed model release is a strong defense, regardless of the time element & a parent's consent is binding for a minor
40
Miller v. Ford
California court ruled that "sound-alikes" need to be legally cleared before undergoing a commercial venture
41
Cher v. Forum
New York ruled that a magazine must secure permission to use a celebrity's name in an endorsement
42
Paulsen v. Personality Posters
a company sold posters of Pat Paulsen during his comic run as a presidential candidate New York court ruled that the newsworthiness of an event may override a claim of appropriation
43
false light
the spreading of "highly offensive false publicity" with knowledge of or a reckless disregard for the truth
44
only tort recognized by the US Supreme Court
false light
45
plaintiff's position against false light
material was published identification information was false highly offensive to a reasonable person defendant knew the information was false
46
Time v. Hill
the New York Times v. Sullivan actual malice standard was applied by the USSC to the false-light privacy tort
47
Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing
USSC declared that falsifying quotes constitutes actual malice and fictionalization
48
Uhl v. CBS
federal district court ruled that a hunter shooting birds is highly offensive to the average person in PA
49
intrusion
protects a private person's right to be left alone and control information about himself/herself
50
defenses of intrusion
public spaces, written permission, and false pretense
51
Galella v. Onassis
a federal district court ruled that overzealous members of the media can be restrained and must be respectful of the moments of private intimacy
52
Le Mistral v. CBS
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
53
Florida Publishing Company v. Fletcher
a Florida court determined that the doctrine of custom and usage protected the media because fire authorities had invited the media onto the property
54
custom and usage
the custom of the private property to allow everyone access if they are to utilize that area properly (ex. grocery stores)
55
private or embarrassing facts
"published" information that is offensive to a reasonable person" and/or is not of concern to the public
56
defenses of private or embarrassing facts
public record, newsworthiness, and written consent NOT TRUTH
57
Sidis v. F&R Publishing Co.
court determined that Sidis was still newsworthy after many years and had little to no claim to privacy
58
Briscoe v. Reader's Digest
federal district court ruled that Reader's Digest had reported the information accurately and Briscoe was still newsworthy
59
Williams v. KCMO
Missouri court declared that the newsworthiness of an event outweighed any privacy concerns in fast-breaking events
60
Cape Publishing v. Bridges
an appellate judge ruled that the newsworthiness of the situation outweighed any privacy claim
61
Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing
a California appellate court ruled that the newsworthiness of the event outweighed Sipple's privacy claims
62
intentional infliction of emotional distress
publication/broadcast of information that causes mental distress or physical harm to an individual through negligence
63
defenses of intentional infliction of emotional distress
First Amendment, newsworthiness, and consent
64
single-publication rule
subsequent sales or reissues or publications are not considered to be new publications, and therefore are not susceptible to libel claims
65
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
USSC overturned original jury decision and ruled that a person cannot sue for emotional distress when there has been no defamation or privacy invasion
66
Hyde v. City of Columbia
Sandra Hyde's name and address were published while her abductor was still at large Missouri court ruled that a newspaper and the city could be sued for emotional distress
67
Olivia N. v. NBC
NBC aired a movie with an object rape scene and shortly after four youths used a bottle to rape a girl California court ruled that the media had not "incited" the harmful action
68
Walt Disney v. Shannon
Disney could not be sued for emotional distress because a young boy lost his sight after copying sound effects
69
Braun v. Soldier of Fortune
court held the magazine liable for the harmful of the ad - ruled that the ad had subjected the public to a "clearly identifiable, unreasonable risk of harm"
70
foreseeable risk
the media is held responsible if they create a foreseeable risk
71
ride-along intrusions
police may be liable for inviting media along, and the media may even be in violation of the the subject's Constitutional rights (intrusion)
72
Wilson v. Layne
media ride-alongs violate the Fourth Amendment
73
Bartnicki v. Vopper
the information Vopper received was obtained legally and of public concern because Bartnicki made a domestic threat
74
Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA)
criminalizes the interception of oral messages as well as those sent by cell, satellite, and email communications
75
video voyeurism
it is illegal to video someone undressing or in a compromising position without their knowledge
76
anti-paparazzi laws
only in California constructive invasion of privacy that published the use of any visual or auditory enhancing devices penalty is triple actual damages
77
drone journalism
refers to "unmanned aerial vehicles" or "unmanned aerial systems" where they cannot fly higher than 400 feet and remain below any surrounding obstacles drones must be in eyesight at all times do not interfere with manned aircraft operations or intentionally fly over unprotected persons and vehicles
78
Riley v. California
police searched Riley's phone during a traffic stop, leading to his arrest USSC stated that a warrant required by the Fourth Amendment is still required and can be obtained with increasing efficiency
79
Carpenter v. US
the government needs a warrant to obtain historical CSLI records
80
summary judgment
asks the judge to decide the case on the bases of pretrial
81
demurrer
asks the court to reject a complaint because it is legally insufficient federal courts don't allow this
82
defenses of defamation
statute of limitation, truth, fair comment, consent, fair report, New York Times Standard
83
Farmers Education and Cooperative Union v. WDAY
USSC ruled that broadcasters are immune from liability for defamation by political candidates in political ads
84
Beauharnais v. Illinois
USSC ruled that defamation directed at ethnic and racial groups can be illegal even when it is not directed at a specific individual
85
Neiman-Marcus Co. v. Lait
a court ruled that identification can occur when defamation is aimed at a small group
86
Cosgrove Studio and Camera v. Pane
identification can occur when the person/business is not specifically named in the defamatory statement
87
Garrison v. Louisiana
state governments cannot censor critics of the government without due process declared criminal libel unconstitutional
88
New York Times v. Sullivan
USSC declared that public officials may recover for defamation upon proof of actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth
89
Rosenblatt v. Baer
"public official" criteria was designated to include those in the hierarchy of government employees who have substantial responsibility for the conduct of government affairs
90
Walker v. AP
AP reported a false story about Major Walker encouraging violence USSC declared courts will seek to determine whether a journalist had, or should have had, serious doubts about the truth of defamatory statements
91
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
the media had plenty of time to verify the facts of the story, but didn't
92
Goldwater v. Ginzburg
US Court of Appeals ruled that creating false statements to support one's predetermined view is evidence of actual malice
93
Cohen v. New York Herald
New York court ruled that "mere exaggeration, irony, or wit" does not make an article defamatory parody is protected
94
Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler
USSC stated that the use of words (such as "blackmail") when used in a public forum, was determined to be non-actionable
95
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
the burden of proof imposed on public officials extends to anyone involved in a matter of public concern, regardless of whether they are famous or unknown

SMAD 450 (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions