JOURN 4000: EXAM 2
122 Cards in this Set
| Front | Back |
|---|---|
|
can the government place limits on access to public property?
|
yes if it's a reasonable time, place and manner restriction
|
|
can you violate a court order?**
|
no you must appeal to a higher court and have the order overturned
|
|
can you violate an ordinance/statute?
|
yes
|
|
can you violate an ordinance/statute?
|
yes
|
|
can you resist arrest?
|
no, not even if the arrest is unlawful
if it is unlawful you can bring a civil suit after the fact
|
|
holding in Frisby v. Shultz 1988**
|
upheld town ordinance that stated you can't picket a targeted home because it was content neutral and you are a captive audience in your home, you cannot retreat any further
|
|
why was the town ordinance upheld in Frisby v. Shultz?
|
it was content neutral
narrowly tailored - not broader than necessary
significant government interest - sanctity of the home
captive audience - one can't retreat further than their home
|
|
Boos v. Barry 1988
|
D.C. statute outlawed protesting within 500 ft. of an embassy with negative signs
USSC ruled it was content based and not narrowly tailored
|
|
is solicitation free speech?
|
yes
|
|
did the courts allow a MN state fair policy of providing booths to handout literature on a 1st come 1st serve basis, which left some groups unable to pass out literature?
|
yes
ruled the 1st come 1st serve basis was a reasonable time, place and manner restriction
|
|
is an airport terminal a public forum?
|
no
|
|
what have the courts said about solicitations in airports?
|
okay to restrict because the solicitations slow travelers down and travelers are on a tight schedule
|
|
are solicitations allowed at post offices?
|
no
|
|
can there be restrictions on messages in public transit?
|
ads are okay but political ads are not because the court wanted to minimize abuse, displaying political ads created the appearance of favoritism and the passengers are a captive audience
|
|
what did the court say about MA bay public transit displaying legalize pot ads?
|
ruled the MA bay public transit had to display the political messages
|
|
is it okay to restrict demeaning ads?
|
yes
|
|
example of a demeaning ad
|
ad stated out of all the religions in the world only one was true: stated 999/1000 religions are false - offensive
|
|
campaign free zone in TN**
|
USSC allowed a campaign free/no soliciting within 100 ft. of the election place
|
|
what did the courts say about CO wanting to make it a felony to pay people to collect signatures?
|
no
|
|
what did the courts say about CO wanting to require those circulating petitions to be a registered voter, wear a name tag and openly display who was paying them and how much?
|
no
|
|
ruling over the Forsyth county GA law that charged a higher parade permit fee for marchers that needed more protection**
|
overturned the higher parade permit fee because it was based on content
no hecklers or bottle thrower's veto
|
|
can a city deny park permits for events?
|
yes if it's content neutral
yes if the office has a reason to deny a permit and sticks to that list, the granting of a permit isn't left up to administrative whim
|
|
USSC ruling in 1966 over black kids being arrested for trying to check out books in a white library
|
overturned because a library is a public forum
|
|
is a library a public forum?
|
yes
|
|
is Francis quadrangle a public forum?
|
yes
|
|
court ruling over students protesting and living in shacks on the quad because of Mizzou's financial interests in South Africa during apartheid
|
the students didn't trespass because the quadrangle is a public forum
|
|
are jail house grounds a public forum?
|
no
|
|
why are jail house grounds not a public forum?
|
the government has the right to use its own property for the designated use
|
|
are state capital grounds and court steps a public forum?
|
yes
|
|
what case covered the burning of draft cards?
|
O'Brien v. US
|
|
O'Brien v. US
|
upheld the federal law that it is illegal to willfully destroy draft cards
|
|
what was established in O'Brien v. US?**
|
the O'Brien test which determines when a government regulation regarding expression is okay
|
|
O'Brien test**
|
a government regulation is okay if:
1. it's within the government's constitutional power
2. it's of significant government interest
3. the government's interest is unrelated to suppressing free speech
4. the restriction is narrowly tailored
|
|
ruling in Johnson v. TX 1989
|
USSC struck down Congress' flag protection act and all anti-flag burning laws
|
|
is nude dancing symbolic speech?
|
yes
|
|
can nude dancing be regulated?**
|
yes
|
|
USSC decision regarding IN outlawing nudity**
|
the USSC allowed IN outlawing nude dancing
|
|
can a state reduce clutter from public advertising signs?
|
yes
|
|
USSC decision regarding outlawing the display of signs in residential homes**
|
it is a constitutional right to have a sign in your window
even though it's content neutral it isn't legal
|
|
USSC decision regarding KKK not being allowed to display a cross in capital square with other holiday decorations
|
the cross can be displayed due to strict scrutiny
|
|
did the USSC uphold MA requiring veterans to include a gay rights group in their St. Patrick's Day march?**
|
no, requiring the veterans to include the gay rights group is a violation of the 1st amendment
|
|
are parades a form of protected expression?
|
yes
|
|
USSC decision regarding UVA not giving a religious publication money coming from mandatory student fees**
|
UVA must fund the publication
not funding the religious publication but funding others is viewpoint discrimination
|
|
USSC decision regarding fees at the University of Wisconsin
|
USSC upheld fees if they sponsor in a viewpoint neutral manner
|
|
can you pass out literature in a mall without the manager's consent?**
|
it depends on the state
no in MO
|
|
AL company town prevented Jehovah's Witnesses passing out religious literature. USSC decision:
|
the more you open up your public space the more freedom individuals have, so they could pass out the literature
|
|
what did the USSC rule regarding the OR Lloyd Center Mall?
|
the mall is not a public district
|
|
who dissented in the Lloyd Center case and what did the justice say?
|
Marshall
for many Lloyd Center has everything they need so they don't go anywhere else
|
|
CA supreme court ruling regarding Cunyard Center
|
high school students could set up a table in the court yard because it's a public area
|
|
MO 8th circuit court decision regarding restriction of funeral picketing**
|
refused to allow legislation that expanded the protection of picketing past the home to include before during and after funerals
reversed their decision
|
|
federal law regarding funeral picketing**
|
allows the prevention of protesting within 300 ft. from 1 hour before the funeral starts all the way until 1 hour after the funeral ends
time place and manner restriction
î‚–
|
|
is it libel if public official Bill Smith's photo is published instead of bank robber Bill Smith's photo?
|
no because the mix up wasn't intentional
|
|
is it libel if a paper lists an individuals position as director of butt licking?
|
no
if the speech is unbelievable it isn't libel
|
|
result of 2002 KC, KS case regarding newspaper falsely printing the incumbent mayor didn't actually live in KS
|
$700 fine
1 year probation
uphold criminal group libel
|
|
USSC decision regarding criminal group libel in 1952
|
upheld criminal group libel in IL case regarding KKK member passing out offensive leaflets
|
|
USSC decision regarding image of model carrying a saddle where the angle makes the saddle look like his penis
|
actionable in libel
|
|
courts on rich name calling
|
the courts recognize rich name calling
you can call someone a clown, stupid SOB and big fat oaf
|
|
is slander or libel more serious
|
libel
|
|
4 categories resulting in presumed damages regarding slander per se
|
crime
loathsome disease
bad in business
sexual misconduct
|
|
can the dead be libeled?
|
yes
|
|
interrogatories
|
written
go to the plaintiff and defendant only
ask detailed questions
|
|
depositions
|
oral
go to parties ask witnesses questions and look into their stories
expensive
|
|
is a libel trial judge or jury?
|
can be either
|
|
can an omission that leaves the wrong impression get you in trouble?
|
yes
|
|
if facts are true but leave a false impression can you get in trouble?
|
yes
|
|
is republication of libel okay?
|
no
|
|
burden of proof switches according to the restatement (2nd) of torts when?**
|
proving a negative
i.e. prove you have never cheated
|
|
Firestone case facts and decision
|
woman holds a couple of press conferences during her high-profile divorce to answer persistent journalists' questions
does not make her a public figure
|
|
2nd circuit court decision regarding NYT story over National Autobahn Society and DDT
|
recognized the NYT's neutral reporting privilege
|
|
what did the appellate court decide in Schafer v. Lamar Publishing?**
|
if a report is accurate and fair the publisher doesn't have to investigate because it has qualified privilege because the statement was made during official proceedings by an official figure and has absolute privilege
|
|
what did the court decide regarding Channel 5 in STL and Robert P. Williams?
|
Williams wins the suit because the station has a privilege to cover committee meetings but didn't attribute statements
|
|
why did the reporter and broadcast company have to pay Robert P. Williams?
|
for not attributing statements
|
|
2 concepts relating to publishing opinion and libel
|
fair comment
rhetorical hyperbole
|
|
USSC decision in 1901 regarding a bad review of a musical group
|
name calling is part of our heritage
you have the right to your own opinion but not your own facts, but incorrect facts are protected if you believe they are true
|
|
examples of rhetorical hyperbole**
|
Chancellor Loftin is a nazi
people crossing the picket line are traitors
|
|
4 part Ollman test and what does it determine?**
|
1. "definitness" of statement
2. verifiability (true or false)
3. linguistic context
4. social context (labor or political)
if a statement is opinion or fact
|
|
decision regarding the Milkovich case**
|
if you label fact as opinion it does not get opinion protection
"in my opinion he's a liar" is the same thing as saying "he's a liar"
|
|
decision in the Moldea case
|
when a book review's content is a supportable interpretation of author's work it can't be actionable in a defamation suit
|
|
what from the Moldea decision did the USSC reject and why?
|
supportable interpretation, it was too subjective
|
|
result of Bobby Kennedy assassination case
|
man accused in the book of shooting Bobby got death threats and was vandalized and won the suit due to espousal
|
|
what is espousal?**
|
taking sides in your reporting
|
|
how to apologize for publishing false info:
|
make a retraction in the same place as the original post
|
|
3 doctrines that made it easy for plaintiffs to win in 1964
also called the Unholy Triumvirate**
|
1. strict liability
2. presumed damages
3. burden of proof on the defendant
|
|
what case revolutionized libel law and what year was it?**
|
NYT v. Sullivan 1964
|
|
who wrote the opinion in NYT company v. Sullivan and what did he/she do?
|
Justice Brennan
federalized libel law
|
|
what was established in NYT company v. Sullivan?
|
independent review
|
|
story behind NYT company v. Sullivan
|
"Heed Their Rising Voices" political ad talked about the Montgomery, AL police commissioner, not by name, and he sues
|
|
USSC decision in NYT company v. Sullivan
|
requiring the defendant to prove the truth is inconsistent with the 1st and 14th amendments
the plaintiff must prove actual malice using "clear & convincing evidence"
|
|
outcome of Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.**
|
private individuals are more vulnerable to injury than public officials/figures so they require more protection under the law
|
|
what case ended the libel revolution in 1974?**
|
Gertz v. Welch
|
|
was Mrs. Firestone a public figure?
|
no, a few press conferences during her divorce didn't make her a p.f.
|
|
does accepting federal funding make one a public figure?
|
no
|
|
outcome of "Golden Fleece" case
|
accepting federal funding didn't make him a public figure and the plaintiff can't make the defendant a public figure
|
|
does engaging in illegal activity make one a public figure?**
|
no
|
|
ruling regarding accused bomber Jewel
|
he is a limited public figure because he held so many press conferences about how he was a hero in the incident
|
|
USSC decision in Herbert v. Lando regarding state of mind**
|
journalists have to answer questions regarding their state of mind during the publishing and editing process
|
|
in Rosenbloom the courts made a high water mark for actual malice by saying everyone had to prove actual malice in cases regarding what?**
|
public issue/controversy
|
|
USSC footnote in "Golden Fleece" case
|
actual malice can't have summary judgment
this was later reversed by the USSC
|
|
what is "entertaining serious doubt" a form of?**
|
reckless disregard
|
|
ruling in Sharon case**
|
the jury found Time magazine was negligent when printing Sharon encouraged the massacre of Palestinians but Time won because malice wasn't proved
|
|
how to treat depositions**
|
as uncorroborated and without privilege unless they were introduced in trial
|
|
Disalle case
|
editor finds Bob saying the lawyer had had an affair with his sister in a deposition which was not public info or neutral reporting
|
|
has the USSC ever recognized neutral reporting?
|
no
|
|
result of Wayne Newton claiming he wasn't a public figure:**
|
fined by the court for a frivolous suit
|
|
USSC decision regarding fabricated quotes**
|
you can not fabricate quotes to some extent and material changes to quotes are actionable
|
|
9th circuit court ruling regarding fabricated quotes
|
you can fabricate quotes to some extent, if they're a rational interpretation
|
|
Oprah case decision**
|
TX cattle ranchers couldn't use veggie libel laws regarding episode on mad cow disease because they don't apply to meat
|
|
McLibel case 1987**
|
leaflets passed out by 2 poor men in the UK claiming McDonalds hurt animals and employees
McDonalds won but then the decision was reversed in 2005 on the grounds that the earlier decision violated the rights of the 2 poor men
|
|
case where beef was referred to as pink ____**
|
slime
|
|
example of emotional distress
|
new mother in hospital bed suffers emotional distress after nurse drops her new born baby on the floor
|
|
Pring v. Penthouse decision**
|
appeal court reverses decision saying that writing Pring would blow guys and then they would levitate wasn't defamatory because it wasn't believable
|
|
decision in Jerry v. Hustler and Larry Flint**
|
jury said no to libel but awarded money for emotional distress
USSC reversed their decision on emotional distress
|
|
what was the USSC trying to protect when not awarding Jerry damages from Hustler for emotional distress?**
|
political cartoons
|
|
USSC decision regarding an outrageousness standard
|
reject it stating it's too subjective
|
|
for Jerry to have won against Hustler and Larry Flint, what 2 thing would he have to had shown?**
|
1. false facts
2. actual malice
|
|
who does the law that unbelievable statements aren't libel apply to?
|
public figures
private individuals
|
|
if text is outrageous and unbelievable can in be libel?**
|
no
|
|
decision regarding Mitchell v. Globe International**
|
whether or not it's believable the headline and parts of the story are believable, the accusation of sexual promiscuity was believable and defamatory
|
|
appellate court decision regarding Mitchell v. Globe International
|
upheld only punitive damages
|
|
decision regarding computerized databases/info services with 3rd party posting
|
they are the same as a library or newsstand, you cannot sue them for libel, you must sue the publication
|
|
court decision regarding IBM's prodigy**
|
since they screened 3rd party content before it went on the internet they were a publisher and could be accountable for libel
|
|
Congressional law regarding IBM prodigy*
|
files 47 USC 230 to overturn the court decision and make it so that platforms that use screening software on 3rd party content are not considered a publisher and therefore held accountable for libelous statements
"good samaritan"
|
JOURN 4000: EXAM 1