Why do you need to study mass communication laws?
Freedom of the press has been growing in general. But it was not absolute in any time.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press-- the First Amendment.
Only seven years later after ratification of the First Amendment, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798, designed to stifle criticism of the government. More than a century later, in 1918, Congress approved another Sedition Act for basically the same reason.
The courts have repeatedly held that the First Amendment is not an absolute. Thus, they are constantly called upon to decide whether actions taken by the press are legally permissible. As the courts consider issues on a case-by-case basis, journalists are obligated to stay abreast of significant decisions.
Areas of particular concern to reporters:
Areas of particular concern to reporters are libel, newsroom searches, protection of sources, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress and the fair trial-free press controversy.
3) Libel: Generalizations about libel laws are difficult. Libel laws are adopted by the 50 states, not by the federal government, and consequently, vary from one area to another. Moreover, as new cases reach the Supreme Court, its decisions change, often dramatically. A series of favorable decisions that began in 1964 encouraged journalists to believe that the laws of libel were being repealed. The Supreme Court protected even news stories that contained obvious factual errors, so long as the errors were not malicious.
However, a series of more recent decisions has created new guidelines that now make it easier for individuals, especially private citizens, to sue the media for libel.
Libel has been defined as written communication that exposes people to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, that lowers them in the esteem of others, that causes them to be shunned, or that injures them in their ability to carry on their business or profession.
Simply a libel is a written statement that damages a person's reputation.
The libel may appear anywhere in a newspaper: in a news story, headline, photograph, advertisement, editorial or letter to the editor.
Citizens can sue the broadcast media for slander, which is oral rather than written. Because it is less permanent, slander is usually considered less serious than libel.
The person who claims to have been libeled (the plaintiff) usually files a suit against a newspaper's publisher and against the company that owns the paper, since they can afford to pay the largest possible settlements. However, each person who handles a story can be held personally liable for its content, so a suit may also name the reporter who wrote the story and the editor who checked it.
4) The five elements of libel:
1) publication--publication of a potentially libelous story and its distribution.
2) identification--The plaintiff does not have to be identified by name if other facts in a story enable even a few readers to guess his or her identity.
However, only the person who is identified can file a libel suit; the victim's relatives cannot, even though they may be embarrassed by a story's publication. So both journalists and historians are free to criticize the dead.
3) defamation--the plaintiff cannot win a libel suit simply because a story is false. To be actionable, the falsehood must damage the plaintiff's reputation.
It is usually not libelous to report mistakenly that a married woman is pregnant. to report mistakenly that a person is dead.
It would be libelous to report falsely that an unmarried woman was pregnant.
4) fault--The plaintiffs in libel suits are required to prove some level of fault on the part of the newspaper or magazine that published a defamatory item. The level of fault can vary from simple negligence to actual malice, depending on just who the plaintiff is.
Most private citizens are required to prove at least some level of fault, usually only simple negligence on the part of the media.
Public officials and public figures must prove a very difficult level of fault: that the media acted with actual malice. --published information knowing it was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falseness.
| Negligence: The failure to exercise a reasonable or ordinary amount of care in a situation that causes harm to someone or something. | |
| Gross negligence: recklessness or willfulness | Public officials or public figures need to prove gross negligence |
| ordinary negligence: failing to act as a reasonably careful person would | Private citizens need to prove ordinary negligence |
5) Injury: prove that he or she suffered some damages: some actual injury or financial loss.
5) Primary Defenses in Libel Suits:
1) Truth: truth is the best defense. But it may be difficult to prove to a judge or jury that the facts reported are true.
In many states, truth alone is an adequate defense.
In other states, truth, the statements are published for good reason. (not needlessly, maliciously)
Newspapers cannot defend themselves in a libel suit by proving that they attributed a statement to some else, nor by proving that they accurately quoted someone else said.
Newspapers usually cannot protect themselves by saying that a story is "reportedly" or "allegedly" true.
2) Fair Comment: "Fair comment and criticism" is a legal doctrine that enables newswriters to express their opinions about matters of public interest. free to criticize public figures and public officials.
3) qualified privilege -- Government officials (presidents, legislators, and judges) enjoy an absolute privilege while acting in their official capacities. Regardless of whether their statements are true or false, defamatory or not, the officials cannot be sued for libel. These people are allowed to speak freely and fearlessly.
Reporters enjoy a "qualified privilege" to report the statements made during those official government proceedings. To be protected by that privilege, their stories must be full, fair, and accurate.
6) Secondary defenses in libel suits: Those defenses do not absolve newspapers of guilt but may lessen the amount they are required to pay in damages.
1) Showing that they did not injure a victim intentionally,
2) they sincerely regret the error-- retracted or corrected it.
3) they obtained their information from normally reliable source,
4) had no way of knowing that it was false,
5) innocently republished a statement that had already been printed elsewhere
7) Types of damages:
1) Compensatory damages: to compensate for damage to their reputations and for their financial losses, sometimes award damages for emotional suffering
2) Punitive damages: to punish publications found guilt of irresponsible conduct and to discourage the conduct's recurrence.
8) Historical cases:(for further info)
8-A) involving public officials:
1964. New York Times v. Sullivan: --To win a libel suit, a public official must prove that
the publication acted with "actual malice."
*On March 29, 1960, the New York Times carried a full-page advertisement entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices", which solicited funds to defend Martin Luther King, Jr. against an Alabama tax-evasion charge.
*The advertisement described actions against civil rights protesters, some of them inaccurately, some of which involved the police force of Montgomery, Alabama. Commissioner L.B. Sullivan, whose duties included supervision of the police department, wasn't named but argued that his position as a Commissioner there meant that the inaccurate criticism of the actions of the police were defamation against him. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_v._Sullivan)
The Supreme Court adopted this rule to encourage debate on public issues. The court feared that if the media could be punished for honest mistakes, they would become more hesitant to discuss important issues and to publish even truthful criticisms of public officials.
8-B) involving public figures:
In 1967: applied the New York Times rule to public figures as well as public officials.
Butts v. Curtis Publishing Co. (owner of the Saturday Evening Post)-- The Curtis Publishing Co. owned the Saturday Evening Post, which reported that Wallace Butts, the athletic director at the University of Georgia, has given his team's plays and defensive patterns to the University of Alabama. (for further information)
A jury awarded him $60,000 in general and $3 million in punitive damages.
The Supreme Court ruled that Butts was a public figure but upheld the award because the Saturday Evening Post acted with a "reckless disregard for the truth."-- a violation of the New York Times rule.
The court explained that the story was not "hot news" so the magazine's editors could have taken time to conduct a more thorough investigation but failed to do so.
AP v. Walker (for further information)
The AP reported that Walker had assumed command of some students and led a charge against federal marshals trying to help James Meridith, a black student, enter the University of Mississippi. The story reported that Walker encouraged the rioters to use violence and instructed them on ways to avoid the effects of tear gas.
The court found that the story contained some factual errors, but it concluded that --hot news.
"Nothing in this series of events gives the slightest hint of a severe departure from accepted publishing standards. We therefore conclude that Gen. Walker should not be entitled to damages from The Associated Press."
8-C) involving private citizens: (for further info)
Gertz v. Welch: A Chicago policeman shot and killed a youth, and the victim's family hired attorney, Elmer Gertz to file a civil suit against the policeman. American Opinion, a monthly magazine published by the John Birch Society, called Gertz a "Communist-fronter." implied that he had a criminal record and said that he had designed a national campaign to discredit the police. Gertz was awarded $50,000.
Private citizens need to prove that a statement was false and defamatory and published as the result of negligence or carelessness.
Most use "negligence," which simply means failure to act as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances.
The 1980s:
8-D) Ariel Sharon v. Time, Inc. In 1982, Israel's former defense minister, Ariel Sharon, filed a $50 million libel suit against Time, Inc.
Jury concluded that Time defamed Sharon.
The Time was mistaken.
The jury criticized Time for acting "negligently and carelessly," not to the point of being reckless.
Both sides claimed victory.
8-E)