Libel and Emotional Distress:
-The libel plaintiffs case has many elements, as outlined under relevant doctrine. The first five elements are examined in the preceding sections
-No matter where libel occurs or in what communicative medium, the plaintiff must prove the same elements
-Libel plaintiffs must show that the defendant is at fault for publishing the defamatory material
-The level of fault that must be proved varies according to the plaintiffs status; public official s and figures must show the defendant acted with actual malice, private figures must prove negligence on the part of the defendant
-Sometimes questions about fault involve an evaluation of whether the statements in question effect public concern
- Outrageous actions may lead to successful intentional infliction of emotional distress suits
-Public officials and figures must show the defendant acted with actual malice to win an intentional infliction of emotional distress case
- A plaintiff suing for negligent infliction of emotional distress must prove the defendant had duty of due care and breached that duty, causing the plaintiffs severe emotional distress, and that there is proximate cause to find the defendant liable for the harm
Key Terms:
Libel per se- a statement whose injurious nature is apparent and requires no further proof
Libel per quod- A statement whose injurious nature requires proof
Important Cases:
New York Times Co. v Sullivan:
A case in which the Court ruled that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation; the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. In order to prove libel, a “public official” must show that the newspaper acted “with 'actual malice'–that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard” for truth.
Hustler Magazine Inc v Falwell:
A case in which the Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages; Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages.
Relevant Doctrine:
Plaintiff’s Case fore Libel:
1) A statement of fact
2) That is published
3) That is of and concerning the plaintiff
4) That is defamatory
5) That is false
6) That causes damage or harm and
7) For which the defendant is at fault
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:
Extreme and outrageous intentional or reckless conduct causing plaintiffs severe emotional harm; public official and public figure plaintiff must show actual malice on defendants part
The Plaintiffs case- Defendants intentional or reckless conduct 1) Was extreme and outrageous beyond the bounds of decency tolerated in civilized society, 2) Involved actual malice, if plaintiff is a public official or public figure, and 3) Caused plaintiffs severe emotional distress. There is no defense if plaintiff proves his or her case
The issue discussed briefly in the book regarding President Trump's ability to change US libel laws; Trump (obviously) doesn't like the negative things that are written about him, "false" articles, and anything that may hurt his character. In a statement in 2016, he suggested that he wanted to open up our libel laws in order to gain significant amounts of money from lawsuits. Libel law is state law, therefore the President cant make any changes. In order for Trump to change any Libel Laws, he has to get Supreme Courts to overturn the Sullivan decision. It was mentioned how changing libel law would likely be used to harm Trump, and he would become a libel defendant rather than plaintiff. This was an interesting take on the issue, and I definitely agree considering all pf the negative things that come from Trumps mouth. At this point, i believe maintaining the current libel laws would be helpful in protecting our First Amendment rights, and does not need to be changed.
Questions:
No comments:
Post a Comment