Question 1

Although the Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Supreme Court said in New York Times v. Sullivan that seditious libel laws violate the central purpose of the First Amendment.

Accepted Answer

The statement is true. The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, but in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court stated that seditious libel laws (which were included in the Alien and Sedition Acts) violate the central purpose of the First Amendment.

Question 2

Once libel plaintiffs establish that they have been defamed by the media, they are entitled to compensatory damages.

Accepted Answer

In the United States, libel plaintiffs must also prove that the defamation caused harm and, in cases involving public figures, that the media acted with actual malice to be entitled to compensatory damages.

Question 3

A reporter claims the privilege of "neutral reportage" by including any two opposing viewpoints in a story.

Accepted Answer

Neutral reportage is not a recognized legal privilege, and simply including two opposing viewpoints does not automatically make a story neutral or unbiased. Journalists are still responsible for fact-checking and verifying information, and presenting a fair and accurate representation of the events or issues they are reporting on.

Question 4

To be defamatory, a libelous statement must be "published" to at least one person beyond the person libeled.

Accepted Answer

A defamatory statement must be communicated or published to at least one person other than the person being defamed in order to be considered libel.

Question 5

Michael Malice, a campus writer, posts an internet message that most of the brothers of the APT Fraternity House "have spent time in jail for drug use and violence." In fact, none of the ten brothers or the fraternity has ever been charged with drug use or violence. Thomas Goodie, a member of the fraternity, sues Malice for libel. Some courts have ruled a member of a group the size of APT might bring a libel suit because he has been "identified" and defamed.

Accepted Answer

Some courts have recognized the concept of "group libel," where a member of a group, such as a fraternity or organization, may bring a libel suit if they can prove that the defamatory statement "identified" them and caused them harm.

Question 6

Assume that Thomas Goodie [previous question] has been identified and that he brings a libel suit against Michael Malice. He could not win a libel case because the statement that most of the brothers "have spent time in jail for drug use and violence" is protected opinion.

Accepted Answer

For a statement to be considered a protected opinion, it must not imply the assertion of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion. If the statement made by Michael Malice is presented as a factual assertion about Thomas Goodie and his brothers, and if these assertions are false and damaging to their reputations, then it could potentially be considered libelous. The distinction between fact and opinion in defamation cases is nuanced, and the protection of opinion does not extend to false statements of fact presented as the basis for the opinion.

Question 7

Michael Malice's online post [previous two questions] appears on a feisty web site run by MW, an Internet service provider that welcomes controversial viewpoints. Michael Malice does not work for RAW. If Goodie were to sue RAW for libel, RAW could probably successfully claim immunity from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Accepted Answer

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity to Internet service providers from liability for content posted by third parties on their platforms. Since MW is an Internet service provider that hosts Michael Malice's post, RAW could successfully claim immunity from liability under section 230 if sued for libel by Goodie.

Question 8

Assume that RAW removes the posted slur against the APT fraternity [previous three questions] after it has appeared on the web site for ten days. RAW would then become the "publisher" of the slur and would therefore be responsible for defamation in a lawsuit.

Accepted Answer

If RAW removes the slur after ten days, then they are not considered a publisher of the defamatory statement and cannot be held liable for defamation in a lawsuit. However, they may still be liable for any damages caused during the time the statement was published on their website.

Question 9

Cussing a police officer as an "asshole" is likely to land a citizen in jail for criminal libel.

Accepted Answer

Cussing a police officer as an "asshole" may result in a charge of disorderly conduct, but not criminal libel. Criminal libel involves making false and defamatory statements about another person or group with the intent to harm their reputation, and it is a much more serious offense that generally requires a higher threshold of proof.

Question 10

New York Times v. Sullivan is important, in part, because it required public officials in all 50 states to prove actual malice when suing the media for defamation relating to their official conduct.

Accepted Answer

New York Times v. Sullivan established the "actual malice" standard for public officials in defamation cases, which requires proof that the defendant (in this case, the media) made false statements with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This standard applied to public officials in all 50 states.

Question 11

The Supreme Court established in Gertz v. Welch, Time v. Firestone, and other cases that a libel plaintiff might be quite well-known in some circles but remain a private person as a libel plaintiff.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court did establish in Gertz v. Welch, Time v. Firestone, and other cases that a libel plaintiff might be quite well-known in some circles but still be considered a private person for the purposes of a libel lawsuit. This distinction is important because public figures have a higher burden of proof in defamation cases.

Question 12

The Supreme Court has ruled that lawyers must be considered "public figures" in libel cases if they take on a controversial client.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has not issued a blanket ruling that lawyers must be considered "public figures" in libel cases simply because they take on a controversial client. The determination of who is considered a public figure in libel cases is more nuanced and depends on various factors, including the person's role in the controversy, their purposeful engagement with the public, and the context of the case.

Question 13

Mrs. Firestone was a vortex or limited public figure because she participated in a well-publicized divorce.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Mrs. Firestone was a vortex or limited...

Question 14

A business can be defamed.

Accepted Answer

A business can be defamed, just like an individual can be defamed. Defamation refers to false statements or rumors that damage a person's or business's reputation.

Question 15

State University, a public school, could sue for defamation over the published statement "All State University professors are crack heads."

Accepted Answer

Public entities like State University cannot sue for defamation as they are not considered individuals or private entities with personal reputations to protect.

Question 16

Defamation can occur only through the plain meaning of words, not by implication or innuendo.

Accepted Answer

Defamation can occur not only through the plain meaning of words, but also by implication or innuendo.

Question 17

Defamation suits must be filed before expiration of the statute of limitations.

Accepted Answer

Defamation suits have a statute of limitations, which varies by state and ranges from one to three years. Therefore, they must be filed before the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Question 18

The term "actual malice," as used by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, refers to intent to cause harm and is also described as common law malice.

Accepted Answer

"Actual malice" in New York Times v. Sullivan refers to publishing false information about public officials with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, not simply intent to cause harm.

Question 19

Under defamation laws in most states, journalists cannot be sued successfully for defamation if their reporting of legislative and judicial bodies is fair and accurate, even if those reports repeat false statements of fact spoken during the proceedings.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the fair report privilege, which protects journalists from defamation lawsuits if their reporting is fair and accurate of legislative and judicial bodies, even if false statements were made during those proceedings.

Question 20

The U.S. Supreme Court's contemporary defamation doctrine is based on the premise that some falsehoods must be protected in order to provide an environment for uninhibited debate on public issues.

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the First Amendment protects some false statements, particularly those made in the context of public debate on matters of public concern, in order to foster robust and uninhibited debate.

Quiz 4: Libel