Question 1

Who may be sued for libel when a libelous letter to the editor is published in a newspaper?
A)the editor.
B)the publisher.
C)the author of the letter.
D)the corporate owner of the newspaper.
E)all of these.

Accepted Answer

All of these parties may be sued for libel when a libelous letter to the editor is published in a newspaper: the editor, the publisher, the author of the letter, and the corporate owner of the newspaper. They are all potentially liable because they are all involved in the decision to publish the letter and have a duty to ensure that the content is not defamatory.

Question 2

In lawsuits involving public issues that are covered by the mass media,the elements of libel now include all of the following except:
A)defamation.
B)dissemination.
C)identification.
D)some kind of fault.
E)absence of malice.

Accepted Answer

The absence of malice is not an element of libel, but rather a defense that can be used by the defendant. The elements of libel are defamation, dissemination, identification, and some kind of fault.

Question 3

The Supreme Court extended the actual malice rule to public figures as well as public officials for the first time in:
A)Gertz v.Welch.
B)Herbert v.Lando.
C)Rosenbloom v.Metromedia.
D)Time v.Hill.
E)Curtis Publishing v.Butts.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court extended the actual malice rule to public figures in the case of Curtis Publishing v. Butts, recognizing that both public officials and public figures must prove actual malice in defamation cases to recover damages.

Question 4

How did Dun & Bradstreet v.Greenmoss Builders affect the actual malice rule?
A)it didn't affect it.
B)it exempted public figures from the actual malice requirement.
C)it exempted private persons from the actual malice requirement.
D)it excluded libel cases involving purely private matters (rather than issues of public concern)from the actual malice requirement.
E)it abolished the actual malice requirement.

Accepted Answer

Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders established the rule that the actual malice requirement does not apply to libel cases involving purely private matters rather than issues of public concern. It did not affect the actual malice rule in cases of public concern or exempt public or private figures from the actual malice requirement. It also did not abolish the actual malice requirement.

Question 5

The landmark New York Times v.Sullivan decision established a new requirement that public officials who sue for libel must prove actual malice.As defined in this case,actual malice means:
A)ill will or evil intentions.
B)publishing a falsehood with evil intentions.
C)publishing a falsehood with knowledge or with negligence.
D)publishing a falsehood with knowledge or with reckless disregard for the truth.
E)publishing anything that isn't true.

Accepted Answer

Actual malice, as defined in the New York Times v. Sullivan case, means publishing a falsehood with knowledge or with reckless disregard for the truth. It is not simply ill will or evil intentions, and does not encompass all false statements. Additionally, the plaintiff must be a public official or public figure in order for the actual malice standard to apply.

Question 6

The Supreme Court ruled that appellate courts may review and overturn a trial court's determination that actual malice is present in:
A)Bose v.Consumers Union.
B)Herbert v.Lando.
C)Keeton v.Hustler.
D)Calder v.Jones.
E)Anderson v.Liberty Lobby.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court in Bose v. Consumers Union held that appellate courts have the authority to review and overturn a trial court's finding of actual malice in defamation cases, emphasizing the need for independent appellate review to ensure First Amendment protections.

Question 7

A number of states have enacted anti-SLAPP laws.These laws are primarily intended to:
A)abolish libel suits by public officials.
B)abolish libel suits against public officials.
C)protect those who speak out about public issues from harassment lawsuits.
D)protect ordinary citizens who are libeled by making it easier for them to sue.
E)protect public officials who are libeled by making it easier for them to sue.

Accepted Answer

Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect individuals from SLAPP lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) that are intended to silence or intimidate critics who speak out on public issues. These laws enable individuals to quickly dismiss such lawsuits and provide them with protection against further harassment.

Question 8

The Supreme Court has held that a public figure who sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress must prove actual malice on the part of a media defendant,just as he/she would in a libel case.The Supreme Court announced this principle in:
A)Hustler Magazine v.Falwell.
B)Keeton v.Hustler.
C)Herbert v.Lando.
D)Hutchinson v.Proxmire.
E)Milkovich v.Lorain Journal.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court announced this principle in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. In that case, the Court held that public figures must prove actual malice to prevail in a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a media defendant.

Question 9

Which of the following may not sue for libel in most states?
A)corporations.
B)private individuals.
C)government agencies.
D)public officials.
E)public figures.

Accepted Answer

Government agencies generally cannot sue for libel because they are considered to be entities of the public sector, and the principle of sovereign immunity often protects them from being sued. Additionally, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides broad protections for speech about government operations and public officials, making it difficult for government entities to claim libel.

Question 10

Some well-known people are treated as private persons (as opposed to public figures)in libel lawsuits today.This practice was encouraged by several Supreme Court decisions of the 1970s,including:
A)Megarry v.Norton and Time v.Hill.
B)Time v.Hill and Time v.Firestone.
C)Herbert v.Lando and Time v.Firestone.
D)Hutchinson v.Proxmire and Time v.Firestone.
E)Curtis v.Butts and Calder v.Jones.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court decision in Time v. Firestone (1976) is significant for treating some well-known individuals as private persons in libel cases, and Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979) further clarified the distinction between public figures and private individuals in defamation law.

Question 11

A federal appeals court held in 2002 that a newspaper could not be sued in Virginia for material posted on its website,hosted in another state.The case:
A)Young v.New Haven Advocate.
B)Keeton v.Hustler.
C)Calder v.Jones.
D)Herbert v.Lando.
E)Gertz v.Welch.

Accepted Answer

The case Young v. New Haven Advocate established that a newspaper could not be sued in Virginia for material posted on its website, which was hosted in another state. This decision was based on jurisdictional grounds, indicating that simply making content available on the internet does not subject a party to jurisdiction in every state where the content can be accessed.

Question 12

Suppose an editorial in a newspaper charges that all five members of the local city council are incompetent.Under the law in most states,who may successfully sue for libel?
A)each council member.
B)only the mayor.
C)only the council as a whole.
D)no one because this is an expression of opinion.
E)no one because no individual may ever be libeled by criticism of any group,no matter how small.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Suppose an editorial in a newspaper charges...

Question 13

In Milkovich v.Lorain Journal,the Supreme Court held that:
A)a sports column may be libelous if it contains false facts as well as protected expressions of opinion.
B)sports columns,editorials and letters to the editor are all exempt from libel lawsuits under the First Amendment.
C)sports columns are exempt from libel,but letters to the editor are not.
D)sports columns are not exempt from libel,but letters to the editor are exempt.
E)Milkovich had nothing to do with a sports column in a newspaper.

Accepted Answer

In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, the Supreme Court held that a sports column may be libelous if it contains false facts as well as protected expressions of opinion. Therefore, choice A is the correct answer. B, C, and D are incorrect because they suggest either a complete exemption or specific exemptions for certain types of content, which is not the case. E is incorrect because Milkovich is indeed a case related to a newspaper column, specifically a wrestling column.

Question 14

The common law defenses in libel actions include all of the following except:
A)truth.
B)malicious intent.
C)privilege.
D)fair comment.

Accepted Answer

Malicious intent is not a defense in a libel action; it is actually an element of the plaintiff's case. The common law defenses in libel actions include truth, privilege, and fair comment.

Question 15

Most libel plaintiffs must bear the burden of proving any allegedly defamatory statement to be false;the defendant usually does not have the burden of proving the statement true.This principle was strengthened by a 1986 Supreme Court decision that said all states must place the burden of proof on the plaintiff,at least in cases involving issues of public concern.The case:
A)Keeton v.Hustler.
B)Bose v.Consumers Union.
C)Philadelphia Newspapers v.Hepps.
D)Anderson v.Liberty Lobby.
E)Dun & Bradstreet v.Greenmoss Builders.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court decision that strengthened the burden of proof on the plaintiff in cases involving issues of public concern is known as Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps. Therefore, the correct choice is C.

Question 16

In 1986 the Supreme Court said public figures who sue for libel should have their cases dismissed on summary judgment (that is,without a trial)unless they can show actual malice by clear and convincing proof.The court so ruled in the case of:
A)Keeton v.Hustler.
B)Bose v.Consumers Union.
C)Philadelphia Newspapers v.Hepps.
D)Anderson v.Liberty Lobby.
E)Dun & Bradstreet v.Greenmoss Builders.

Accepted Answer

The ruling that public figures who sue for libel should have their cases dismissed on summary judgment unless they can show actual malice by clear and convincing proof was made in the case of Anderson v. Liberty Lobby in 1986.

Question 17

Mass communicators may be forced to defend libel cases in courtrooms thousands of miles from where they live and work,according to the Supreme Court's decision in:
A)Calder v.Jones.
B)Bindrim v.Mitchell.
C)Braun v.Chronicle Publishing Co. .
D)Herbert v.Lando.
E)Gertz v.Welch.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court's decision in Calder v. Jones established the "effects test" for determining whether a court has jurisdiction over a libel case brought by a plaintiff who lives and works in a different state from where the defamatory statements were made. Under this test, a court can assert jurisdiction if the defendant's actions (such as the publication of defamatory statements) were intentional and caused harm that was felt in the plaintiff's home state. This means that mass communicators can be sued for libel in any state where their defamatory statements are published and cause harm, even if they do not have a physical presence in that state.

Question 18

In the 1991 case of Masson v.New Yorker Magazine,the Supreme Court ruled that:
A)all plaintiffs must prove actual malice in libel cases.
B)actual malice must be proven in "emotional distress" cases as well as libel cases.
C)journalists may make minor changes in quotations without committing a libel.
D)most libel cases should be dismissed on summary judgment.
E)all of these.

Accepted Answer

In Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, the Supreme Court ruled that journalists may make minor changes to quotations as long as those alterations do not materially change the meaning of the statement and do not result in a defamatory impression that is different from that which the unaltered quotations would have produced.

Question 19

Since public figures must prove actual malice,it is only fair to let them inquire into the thought processes and attitudes of journalists who produce an allegedly libelous story.The Supreme Court announced this principle in:
A)Calder v.Jones.
B)Keeton v.Hustler.
C)Herbert v.Lando.
D)Hutchinson v.Proxmire.
E)Milkovich v.Lorain Journal.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court announced the principle that public figures can inquire into the thought processes and attitudes of journalists in Herbert v. Lando. In this case, the Court held that a journalist's state of mind could be used as evidence in a libel case brought by a public figure. The Court reasoned that the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, but it does not provide journalists with absolute immunity from defamation claims brought by public figures. Herbert v. Lando is thus the best choice for this question.

Question 20

In the 1974 case of Gertz v.Welch,the Supreme Court authorized the states to:
A)exempt private persons from proving actual malice if they could prove at least negligence.
B)eliminate the actual malice requirement for all but the most prominent elected officials.
C)redefine everyone except politicians as private persons.
D)require public officials to prove negligence instead of actual malice.
E)let public figures sue for libel without proving any fault.

Accepted Answer

In the case of Gertz v. Welch, the Supreme Court ruled that private persons could be exempted from proving actual malice if they could prove at least negligence. This ruling authorized the states to adopt a "negligence standard" for private individuals in libel cases, whereas public figures still had to prove actual malice.

Quiz 4: Libel and Slander

Who may be sued for libel when a libelous letter to the editor is published in a newspaper?

In lawsuits involving public issues that are covered by the mass media,the elements of libel now include all of the following except:

The Supreme Court extended the actual malice rule to public figures as well as public officials for the first time in:

How did Dun & Bradstreet v.Greenmoss Builders affect the actual malice rule?

The landmark New York Times v.Sullivan decision established a new requirement that public officials who sue for libel must prove actual malice.As defined in this case,actual malice means:

The Supreme Court ruled that appellate courts may review and overturn a trial court's determination that actual malice is present in:

A number of states have enacted anti-SLAPP laws.These laws are primarily intended to:

The Supreme Court has held that a public figure who sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress must prove actual malice on the part of a media defendant,just as he/she would in a libel case.The Supreme Court announced this principle in:

Which of the following may not sue for libel in most states?

Some well-known people are treated as private persons (as opposed to public figures) in libel lawsuits today.This practice was encouraged by several Supreme Court decisions of the 1970s,including:

A federal appeals court held in 2002 that a newspaper could not be sued in Virginia for material posted on its website,hosted in another state.The case:

Suppose an editorial in a newspaper charges that all five members of the local city council are incompetent.Under the law in most states,who may successfully sue for libel?

In Milkovich v.Lorain Journal,the Supreme Court held that:

The common law defenses in libel actions include all of the following except:

In 1986 the Supreme Court said public figures who sue for libel should have their cases dismissed on summary judgment (that is,without a trial) unless they can show actual malice by clear and convincing proof.The court so ruled in the case of:

Mass communicators may be forced to defend libel cases in courtrooms thousands of miles from where they live and work,according to the Supreme Court's decision in:

In the 1991 case of Masson v.New Yorker Magazine,the Supreme Court ruled that:

Since public figures must prove actual malice,it is only fair to let them inquire into the thought processes and attitudes of journalists who produce an allegedly libelous story.The Supreme Court announced this principle in:

In the 1974 case of Gertz v.Welch,the Supreme Court authorized the states to: