cmcn 345 communication law and ethics william r. davie, ph.d lecture 5 sept. 5, 2006
Post on 23-Jan-2016
24 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
CMCN 345
Communication Law and Ethics
William R. Davie, Ph.D
Lecture 5
Sept. 5, 2006
Principles and Elements
Defamation Law:
Libel/Slander
Louisiana Criminal DefamationR.S. 14:47 Defined as “…the malicious
publication or expression in any manner…
1. “To expose any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or
2. “To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or
3. “To injure any person, corporation, or association of persons in his or their business or occupation.”
PENALTY: Maximum 6 months and $500.00
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Purpose of Libel Law
Designed to protect reputation.
Good name is precious property.
Public redress by peaceful means.
• Publication of defaming message taken as fact?
• Identification of plaintiff?
• Defamatory and False?
• Fault of defendant?
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Basic Elements of Libel
Libel/Slander
Defamation Defined
o Reputation (damage to profession or persona)
o Contempt and ridicule (humiliation)
o Hatred (shunned)
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Key Questions of Libel
Harmful damage to reputation?
-- false and injurious words;
-- exposure to hatred, scorn or ridicule;
-- lowered esteem and/or good will;
-- loss of association, business, etc.
Two Types of Defamation
Libel Per Se
-- on its face ("by itself") • Crime • Disease • Professional
dishonesty•
Immorality/Unchastity
Libel Per Quod -- by circumstance -- contextual harm to
reputation
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Is the insult obvious or not?
DEFAMATION Questions???
A significant number of “right minded” audience members have to believe the slur.
Libel or Slander: Print or Broadcast
Headlines may be libelous; can pictures be libelous as well?
DEFAMATION TO REPUTATION
Elements of a Libel Claim
Defamation
Identification
Key Question of Libel:
Identification of defamed?
-- Plaintiff’s name unnecessary;
-- Photos, titles, sketches, initials, other inferences;
-- Group identification:
USA Confidential & Nieman Marcus
Oklahoma Sooners & Inhalants
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
IDENTIFICATION
Not always by name Even fiction can “identify” No libel against very large
groups (e.g., “politicians”) Case law is mixed concerning
smaller groups
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Key Question of Libel:
Identification of DEFENDANT?
Internet anonymity requires...
-- Possible “John Doe” litigation;
-- Proof suit will not be dismissed;
-- Extra effort in discovery phase.
Elements of a Libel Suit:
Publication
Fault
Key Question of Libel:
Publication of defaming message?
-- Third person heard it.
-- Broadcast or internet counts.
(Any republications?)
-- Bearer of tales as liable as teller of tales.
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Only one THIRD PARTY must hear
MORE About Publication
Self Publication
Publication VS Defamation Reputation must be
diminished in MANY minds
PUBLICATION
PUBLICATION, continued
Republications are actionable too, with exceptions: Wire services, bookstores,
some internet service providers
Neutral Reportage and FAIR REPORT defenses
Some Traditional Libel Defenses
Statute of limitations
Truth
Some Traditional Libel Defenses
Consent
Fair Comment
Sticks and Stones of Defamation?
o Media costs
o Damages in dollars
o Confusion + Frustration + Media Mistrust = Trouble
o SLAPP Initiatives
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Look at words’ natural meaning
DEFAMATION
“Libel-proof” plaintiffs(Dr. Kevorkian and Evel Knievel)
Defamation of Groups, Corporations, & Products
Businesses can sue for libel when accused of dishonest practices, or insolvency.
Defamation of Groups, Corporations, & Products
Criticism of manufacturer’s motives
Trade libel [or product disparagement]: Falsely criticizing a product line
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
GROUP or CRIMINAL LIBELBeauharnais v. Illinois (1952)
LIBEL'S DEFENSES AND DAMAGES
o Truth
o Privilege
(Absolute and Qualified)
o Tarnished Reputation
o Opinion (Fair Comment & Criticism)
o Other (Consent, Right of Reply)
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
LIBEL'S DEFENSES AND DAMAGES
o Privilege
(Absolute and Qualified) Official government records or proceedings,
so long as accuracy, balance, reasonable completeness are evident.
• Criminal charges
• Courtroom proceedings
• Legislature, school board, parish, other public meetings.
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
LIBEL'S DEFENSES AND DAMAGES
o Fair Comment & Criticism: Milkovich v. Lorain Journal (1990)
• Columnist claimed a coach was lying about a brawl, which court held to be a fact-based statement.
• Fair comments described as hyperbole, figures of speech, or statements incapable of being proven true or false, ugly.
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
LIBEL'S DEFENSES AND DAMAGES
opinion statements will lose legal protection once they suggest that
A. some defamatory but undisclosed facts do exist;
B. opinions are based on false or incomplete facts, or….
C. opinions are based on erroneous assessments of accurate information.
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Types of Damage Awards
DAMAGES: Compensatory• ACTUAL: monetary relief for
intangibles -- harm to reputation, mental anquish, other types of distress.
• SPECIAL: compensation for specific financial losses.
• PRESUMED: requires proof of actual malice in most cases
• NOMINAL: plaintiff wins case but jury finds no evidence indicating true harm suffered.
• DAMAGES: Punitive• PUNITIVE: Designed to punish the libeler
rather than compensate the person libeled.
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Compensatory Damages
Designed to make the plaintiff “whole” Presumed = no real proof of harm
needed; harm is in the words themselves
Actual = plaintiff must make some showing of harm
Special = plaintiff must prove very specific loss [e.g., firing from a job]
Punitive Damages:
To punish and deter
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Key Question of Libel
Burden of Proof
-- Falsity or Truth (Substantial)?
-- Common law required defendant prove truth.
-- Contemporary law requires plaintiff prove falsity.
FAULT
U. S. libel law used to embrace “strict liability” no finding of negligence
required if a damaged reputation
resulted from a publication, there was liability.
New York Times v. Sullivan changed that principle.
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Key Question of Libel:
Was the defendant at fault?
-- Negligence defined as failure to exercise reasonable or ordinary care.
-- News media requirement of fact checking (verification); fair and balanced; seeking harmed party’s response, etc.
-- Evidence of ordinary malice.
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
New Standard of Fault:
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Public Official’s
“Actual Malice” Test:
To show the Defendant had either
** Knowledge of Falsity, or
** Reckless Disregard of Truth or Falsity
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
PUBLIC OFFICIAL RATIONALE:
• Public officials voluntarily enter public life and realize
criticism may result.
• Public officials have more access to media to correct wrongs and make statements of rebuttal.
Public versus Private Persons
o All-Purpose Public or Private Figures: Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts (1967)
o Limited-Purpose Public Figures (Paul “Bear” Bryant)
o Rosenbloom case: Actual Malice if issue was of public importance
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Public versus Private Persons
Gertz v. Welch (1974)
Principle: “A publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure may not claim the New York Times protection against liability…”
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
Two Louisiana Cases
Actual Malice Test 1: Garrison v. State of Louisiana (1964)
o “high degree of awareness of probable falsity”
Actual Malice Test 2: St. Amant v. Thompson (1968)
o “entertained serious doubts as to the truth” of the publication
CMCN 345 Lecture 5, Sept. 5, 2006
top related