DOCSLIB.ORG

Khalid Khawar V. Globe International, INC. Thomas Moyer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Khalid Khawar V. Globe International, INC. Thomas Moyer University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository David E. Snodgrass Moot Court Competition Student Scholarship 11-18-1997 Ninth Place: Khalid Khawar v. Globe International, INC. Thomas Moyer Hooman Soleimanzade Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/moot_court Recommended Citation Thomas Moyer and Hooman Soleimanzade, Ninth Place: Khalid Khawar v. Globe International, INC. (1997). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/moot_court/22 This Brief - Prize 09 is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in David E. Snodgrass Moot Court Competition by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NINTH PLACE 8054668 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA KHALID KHAWAR, ) No, S054868 ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) Court of Appeal ) Case No. B084899 V. ) ) Los Angeles GLOBE INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) County Superior ) Court Case No. Defendant and Appellant. ) WEC 139685 ___ ________ ______________ ) Review After Decision by the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven Los Angeles County Superior Court Honorable Richard G. Harris, Judge RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS November 18, 1997 Thomas 0. Moyer Round #1: 6:00 P.M. Hooman Soleimanzadeh 200 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 565-4600 Counsel for Respondent QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether this Court should affirm the jury’s finding that Mr. Khawar was a private figure the night Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Senator Kennedy. 2. Whether this Court should reject Globe's attempt to invoke a neutral reportage privilege after its republication of defamatory statements. 3. Whether this Court should affirm the jury's finding that Globe published its article with actual malice. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................... v STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................. 1 Preliminary Statement ............................. 1 Statement of Facts ............................... 2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................... 6 ARGUMENT............................................... 8 I. THE COURT OF APPEAL PROPERLY RULED THAT MR. KHAWAR WAS A PRIVATEFIGURE ........................ 8 A. Mr. Khawar was not an Involuntary Limited- Purpose Public Figure because this Status is Inconsistent with a United States Supreme Court Trend, the Courtis Rationale for Establishment of the Public Figure Category, and the Facts of this Case......... 8 1. This Court Should Comport with the United States Supreme Court Trend Abandoning the Involuntary Public Figure Status ........................... ^ 2. California Should Reject an Involuntary Public Figure Status Because it Fails to Comport with the Supreme Court's Rationale for Establishment of the Public Figure Category .................. 11 3. Even if this Court Finds that an Involuntary Public Figure Status Exists, the Facts of this Case Render the Doctrine Inapplicable ........ 12 B. The Nature and Extent of Mr. Khawar's Participation is Insufficient to Justify Limited-Purpose Public Figure Status ........ 13 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page 1. Mr. Khawar did not Voluntarily Thrust Himself into a Role of Special Prominence, nor did he Seek to Influence the Resolution or Outcome of a Public Controversy................ 14 2. Mr. Khawar did not Enjoy the Requisite Access to Effective Channels of Media Communication .......................... 16 C. Even if Mr, Khawar Attained Either Involuntary or Voluntary Limited Public Figure Status at the Time of Senator Kennedy's Assassination, he no Longer had this Status Twenty-One Years Later .......... 18 II. THE COURT OF APPEAL PROPERLY RULED THAT A NEUTRAL REPORTAGE PRIVILEGE DID NOT PROTECT GLOBE'S REPUBLICATION OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS...................................... 20 A. California does not Recognize a Neutral Reportage Privilege .......................... 22 B. Legal Precedent and Public Policy Militate Against Recognizing a Neutral Reportage Privilege ........................ 24 1. A Neutral Reportage Privilege is in Conflict with Supreme Court Defamation Jurisprudence ................ 24 a. A Neutral Reportage Privilege is in Conflict with St. Amant v. Thompson.......................... 25 b. A Neutral Reportage Privilege is in Conflict with Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc,................ 25 2. A Neutral Reportage Privilege is an Unduly Burdensome Obstacle to Recovery ........................ 27 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page C. This Court Need not Adopt or Reject a Neutral Reportage Privilege because the Facts of this Case Render the Doctrine Inapplicable ................................. 28 1. Defamatory Statements Republished by Globe did not Originate from a Responsible and Prominent Source ........ 29 2. Defamatory Statements Republished by Globe were not Directed at a Public Figure................................... 30 a. A Neutral Reportage Privilege Requires that the Defamatory Accusations be Directed at a Public Figure ....................... 30 b. A Neutral Reportage Privilege that Extends to Private Individuals is Inconsistent with California Defamation Jurisprudence ...................... 31 3. Defamatory Statements Republished by the Globe were not ^'Accurately and Disinterestedly" Reported .......... 32 III. THERE IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT GLOBE'S ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED WITH ACTUAL MALICE........................................... 34 A. This Court Should Give Deference to the Jury's Factual Finding that Globe Published its Article with Actual Malice....................................... 35 B. Globe Acted with Actual Malice Because of its Deliberate Failure to Confirm the Probable Falsity of its Article.......... 36 C. Globe Acted with Actual Malice Because its Article was Glaringly False and Absurd....................................... IV. CONCLUSION....................................... 39 IV TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES Bose Corp. v. Consumer's Union, 466 U.S. 485 (1984).............................. 36 Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967).............................. 36, 37 Gertz v, Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).............................. passim Harte-Han)cs Communications v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989).............................. passim Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. Ill (1979).............................. passim New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).............................. 25, 27,34 St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968).............................. passim Time, Inc, v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1975).............................. 16, 18,26 FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT CASES Carson v. Allied News, 529 F.2d 206 (7th Cir. 1975) .................... 38 Cianci v. New Times Publishing Co., 639 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1988) ...................... passim Dickey v. CBS Inc., 583 F.2d 1221 (3d Cir. 1978) .................... 24 Dixson V. Newsweek, 562 F.2d 626 (10th Cir. 1977).................... 30, 31 Edwards v. National Audubon Society, Inc., 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977)...................... passim Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d 1541 (4th Cir. 1994) .................... 13 1 V TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.) Page Oilman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984).................... 35 Wolston v. Reader's Digest Ass'n Inc., 578 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1978) rev'd on other grounds, 443 U.S. 157 (1979)............................... Passim FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT CASES Barry v. Time, Inc., 584 F.Supp. 1110 (N.D. Cal. 1984)................ 29 Naantaanbuu v. Abernathy, 816 F.Supp. 218 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) .................. 19 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASES Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., 48 Cal. 3d 711 (1989)............................. Passim Reader's Digest Ass'n v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 244 (1984)............................. 13, 34,35 CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL CASES Grillo V. Smith, 144 Cal. App. 3d 868 (1983)...................... 22,23 Stockton Newspapers, Inc, v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App. 3d 966 (1988)...................... 22 Weinqarten v. Block, 102 Cal. App. 3d 129 (1980)...................... 22 OTHER STATE COURT CASES April V. Reflector Herald Inc., 546 N.E.2d 466 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).............. 31 Hogan v. Herald Co., 444 N.E.2d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)............ 27 Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ane, 423 So.2d 387, 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) ....................... 32 VI I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.) Page Newell v. Fields Enters. Inc., 415 N.E.2d 434 (Ill. App. 3d 1980) .............. 21 Postill V. Booth Newspapers/ Inc., 325 N.W. 2d 511 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982)............ 27 MISCELLANEOUS CAL. CIV. PROC. § 592 (West 1996) .................... 1 Dennis J. Dobbels, Edwards v. National Audubon Society, Inc.: A Constitutional Privilege to Republish Defamation Should Be Rejected, 33 Hastings L.J. 1203 (1982) .................... 24,26 Dale K, Nichols, The Involuntary Public Figure Class of Gertz v. Robert Welch: Dead or Merely Dormant?, 14 U.Mich. J.L.Reform 71 (1980) .................. 9, 10 Justin Wertman, The Newsworthiness Requirement of the Privilege of Neutral Reportage is a Matter of Public Concern, 65 Fordham L. Rev. 789 (1996).................... 21,29 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 581 (1979)............ 20 » vii IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA KHALID KHAWAR,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the End, Truth Will out - Or Will It
    Missouri Law Review Volume 52 Issue 2 Spring 1987 Article 2 Winter 1987 In the End, Truth Will Out - Or Will It Donald L. Magnetti Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Donald L. Magnetti, In the End, Truth Will Out - Or Will It, 52 MO. L. REV. (1987) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol52/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Magnetti: Magnetti: In the End "IN THE END, TRUTH WILL OUT" ...OR WILL IT? "MERCHANT OF VENICE," ACT II, SCENE 2 Donald L. Magnetti* I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 299 II. Tim COMMON LAW OF DEFAMATION ....................... 300 III. Tim New York Times RULE: PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND THE MEDIA 307 DEFENDANT ............................................ IV. THE PUBLIC FIGURE PLAINTI=: Gertz v. Robert Welch ...... 311 V. DEVELOPMENTS AFTER Gertz .............................. 318 A. Forum Shopping ................................... 318 B. Post-Gertz Decisions Add to the Confusion ........... 320 C. The Dun and Bradstreet Decision - A "Side-Step"... 326 D. Falsity - The Essence of a Defamation Action ....... 329 The Neutral Reportage Privilege ..................... 329 PriorRestraint Cases ............................... 331 The "False Light" Cases ............................ 332 The "Fictionalization" Cases ........................ 334 The "Libel-ProofPlaintiff" and "Subsidiary Libel" 336 D octrines.......................................... The Issue of Falsity ................................ 339 Sum mary .......................................... 342 VI. PROPOSED REMEDIES FOR IE DEFAMED PLAINT ..........
    [Show full text]
  • The First Amendment in the Second Circuit: Reflections on Edwards V
    St. John's Law Review Volume 65 Number 3 Volume 65, Summer 1991, Number 3 Article 6 The First Amendment in the Second Circuit: Reflections on Edwards v. National Audobon Society, Inc., the Past and the Future Floyd Abrams Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT: REFLECTIONS ON EDWARDS v. NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC., THE PAST AND THE FUTURE FLOYD ABRAMS* INTRODUCTION So often in its first century has the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit led the nation in the articulation of legal principles that it comes as no surprise to us when it does so again. But we pay a price for our expectations. As readers of Second Circuit opin- ions, we become jaded by the court's accomplishments-as if Ricky Henderson added one more stolen base to his record or Pete Rose eked out yet another hit. Some decisions that are recognized in their own field as being of the highest significance consequently fail to receive the more general legal recognition they deserve. In this offering I discuss one such case-a ruling, both creative and controversial, of the Court of Appeals in 1977 which remains a landmark in both libel law and first amendment law and which typifies, in my view, the extraordi- nary vision of the Second Circuit.1 I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Neutral Reportage Privilege in Theory and Practice
    UCLA UCLA Entertainment Law Review Title When the Slander is the Story:The Neutral Reportage Privilege in Theory and Practice Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0d65t53k Journal UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 17(1) ISSN 1073-2896 Author Laidman, Dan Publication Date 2010 DOI 10.5070/LR8171027133 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California When the Slander is the Story:The Neutral Reportage Privilege in Theory and Practice Dan Laidman* I. INTRODUCTION It is an angry time in American politics. Members of Congress have disputed the President's citizenship and accused him of promoting "Nazi" policies,' an ex-President has called a Congressman racist,2 and a member of the House of Representatives publicly questioned the sanity of a constituent who compared the President to Adolph Hitler.3 Traditional media outlets have chronicled the comments and then countless websites have republished them, leading some to find a causal connection between the explosions in new media and political rhetoric.' On the local level, municipal politics continue to generate fierce disputes which often lead to allegations of slander involving public officials.5 Only now, with the collapse of the * J.D., UCLA School of Law, 2010. Many thanks to Professor Gia Lee at UCLA Law School and to Joseph Doherty, director of the school's Empirical Research Group. 1 See Andie Coller, G.O.P. 'Cranks' Dominating Debate, POLITICO, Sept. 10, 2009, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27015.html. 2 See Jeff Zeleny & Jim Rutenberg, White House is Sitting Out Race Debate, N.Y.
    [Show full text]
  • With Malice Toward None: a New Look at Defamatory Republication and Neutral Reportage James E
    Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 13 | Number 3 Article 3 1-1-1991 With Malice toward None: A New Look at Defamatory Republication and Neutral Reportage James E. Boasberg Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_comm_ent_law_journal Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation James E. Boasberg, With Malice toward None: A New Look at Defamatory Republication and Neutral Reportage, 13 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 455 (1991). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol13/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. With Malice Toward None: A New Look at Defamatory Republication and Neutral Reportage by JAMES E. BOASBERG* Table of Contents I. Unknowing Republication of Falsehood .................... 457 A . Background .......................................... 457 B. Origins of the Wire Service Defense ................... 458 C. The Wire Service Defense Since Sullivan .............. 459 D. Beyond Wire Services ................................ 462 II. Knowing Republication of Falsehood ...................... 465 A. Introduction of the Neutral Reportage
    [Show full text]
  • A Constitutional Privilege to Republish Defamation Should Be Rejected Dennis J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 33 | Issue 5 Article 6 1-1982 Edwards v. National Audubon Society, Inc: A Constitutional Privilege to Republish Defamation Should be Rejected Dennis J. Dobbels Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Dennis J. Dobbels, Edwards v. National Audubon Society, Inc: A Constitutional Privilege to Republish Defamation Should be Rejected, 33 Hastings L.J. 1203 (1982). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol33/iss5/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comments Edwards v. National Audubon Society, Inc: A Constitutional Privilege to Republish Defamation Should Be Rejected In Edwards v. NationalAudubon Society, Inc.,1 the Second Circuit recognized a first amendment constitutional privilege to republish newsworthy defamatory falsehoods irrespective of the second pub- lisher's subjective awareness of the statement's falsity. At common law, republication of a known falsehood is privileged as a fair report only when the calumny reported was made at an official proceeding or pub- lic meeting. 2 The Edwards "neutral reportage" privilege, however, would protect a "fair" and "accurate" report of any defamatory false- hood made by a "responsible" and "prominent" organization or per- son, even if the first publication was made in a private conversation. 3 Thus, the Edwards decision would subsume the common law privilege. Although the Edwards decision purported to follow the Supreme Court's first amendment theory,4 a careful analysis of first amendment theory indicates that Edwards was inappropriately decided.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Success of a Conspicuous Law: Proposition 65 and the Reduction of Toxic Chemical Exposures
    The Hidden Success of a Conspicuous Law: Proposition 65 and the Reduction of Toxic Chemical Exposures Claudia Polsky & Megan Schwarzman Newcomers to California could be forgiven for thinking they have crossed into treacherous terrain. By virtue of the state’s Proposition 65 right-to-know law, store shelves and public garages everywhere announce, “WARNING: This [product/food/facility] contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer [or reproductive harm].” The proliferation of consumer warnings about toxic exposures in everyday life has made Prop 65 highly controversial, as has the degree to which the law incentivizes citizens to sue businesses for failure to warn. Both features make the law recurrently vulnerable to weakening in Sacramento and preemption in Washington, D.C. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38959C833 Copyright © 2020 Regents of the University of California. JD, M. Appl. Sci., Assistant Clinical Professor of Law & Director, Environmental Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Prior to joining Berkeley Law, Ms. Polsky litigated Prop 65 cases as a deputy attorney general at the California Department of Justice and helped draft the attorney general’s regulations governing private Prop 65 settlements. Ms. Polsky has testified before the California legislature about the marketplace effects of Prop 65 litigation. MD, MPH, Associate Scientist and Lecturer, University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health. Dr. Schwarzman is an expert on the health effects of human exposure to toxic chemicals, and she has testified before the California legislature about the health effects of chemicals regulated by Prop 65. This work was performed under California’s Breast Cancer Research Program grant 23QB- 1881, as part of a multidimensional investigation of “The Impact of Proposition 65 on Chemical Exposures Relevant to Breast Cancer” for which Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • In Tort Pursuit of Mass Media: Big Tobacco, Big Banks, and Their Big Secrets, 44 U
    University of Massachusetts School of Law Scholarship Repository @ University of Massachusetts School of Law Faculty Publications 2014 In Tort Pursuit of Mass Media: Big Tobacco, Big Banks, and Their iB g Secrets Richard J. Peltz-Steele University of Massachusetts School of Law - Dartmouth, [email protected] Eric J. Booth Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umassd.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Intellectual Property Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Richard J. Peltz-Steele & Eric J. Booth, In Tort Pursuit of Mass Media: Big Tobacco, Big Banks, and Their Big Secrets, 44 U. Mem. L. Rev. 267 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository @ University of Massachusetts chooS l of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Repository @ University of Massachusetts chooS l of Law. THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS LAW REVIEW VOLUME 44 WINTLR 2013 NUMBER 2 Copyright 0 2013 The University of Memphis Law Review CONTENTS ARTICLES IN TORT PURSUIT OF MASS MEDIA: BIG TOBACCO, BIG BANKS, AND THEIR BIG SECRETS RichardJ.Peltz-Steele Eric J. Booth 267 SHELBY COUNTY AND THE END OF HISTORY Joel Heller 357 EFFECTS LIABLE TO JUSTICE: THE BANKRUPTCY CLAUSE, ARTICLE III COURTS, AND WHY THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN BELLINGHAM DWARF THOSE IN MARATHON AND STERN Adam M Langley 413 NOTES CORPORATE DIRECTORS [AND OFFICERS] MAKING BUSINESS JUDGMENTS IN TENNESSEE: THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE Brandon. Stout 455 TITLE IX: PROPORTIONALITY AND WALK-ONS Abigail M. Mabry 497 In Tort Pursuit of Mass Media: Big Tobacco, Big Banks, and Their Big Secrets RICHARD J.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Tort Law and the Federal Courts John W
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 72 | Issue 1 Article 1 1983 Recent Developments in Tort Law and the Federal Courts John W. Wade Vanderbilt University Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Torts Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Wade, John W. (1983) "Recent Developments in Tort Law and the Federal Courts," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 72 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol72/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recent Developments in Tort Law and the Federal Courts* By JOHN W. WADE** INTRODUCTION During the past two or three decades, the law of torts has ex- perienced more extensive change than perhaps any other field of the common law. To a surprising extent tort law is being substan- tially remade. Under the rule of Erie Railroadv. Tompkins,' this of course spills over into the federal courts in diversity cases. This ferment has become contagious and has affected several aspects of the federal law of torts as well. Any thorough study of the ex- tent to which the work of the federal courts is changing should give attention to these matters. In this Article I propose to analyze briefly the nature of the developments in tort law in the state courts and to offer an inter- pretation of their significance, and then to consider in somewhat greater detail certain areas of federal tort law that have recently been experiencing substantial modification.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Utah Civil Jury Instructions, Second Edition Defamation CV1601 Defamation—Introductory Notes to Practitioners (Not to Be Read to the Jury)
    Model Utah Civil Jury Instructions, Second Edition Defamation CV1601 Defamation—Introductory Notes to Practitioners (not to be read to the jury). ...................... 2 CV1602 Elements of a Defamation Claim............................................................................................ 3 CV1603 Definition: Publication. .......................................................................................................... 4 CV1604A Definition: About the Plaintiff – Public Figure or Public Official Plaintiff – Connection to Plaintiff is Reasonable. ......................................................................................................................... 5 CV1604B Definition: About the Plaintiff – Private Plaintiff – Matter of Public Concern – Connection to Plaintiff is Reasonable. .................................................................................................. 7 CV1604C Definition: About the Plaintiff – Private Plaintiff – No Matter of Public Concern – Connection to Plaintiff is Reasonable – Negligence. ............................................................................ 8 CV1604D Definition: About the Plaintiff – Private Plaintiff – No Matter of Public Concern – Connection to Plaintiff is Reasonable – Strict Liability. ....................................................................... 9 CV1604E Definition: About the Plaintiff – Connection to Plaintiff is Unreasonable. ....................... 10 CV1605 Definition: False Statement. ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Tort Law: Dignitary Torts
    Exam No.: ______ ADVANCED TORT LAW: DIGNITARY TORTS Prof. Rob Leflar SPRING 2005 FINAL EXAMINATION INSTRUCTIONS: 1. The exam is two hours long. You will have plenty to write in those 120 minutes, so use your time well. 2. The exam has three parts. Answers to each part must begin on a separate page. The suggested time for each part is as follows: Part I (short answer questions): 45 minutes Part II (essay question): 45 minutes Part III (essay question): 30 minutes. Grading will be weighted roughly in accordance with these suggested times: 3/3/2. I would recommend that you take a quick look at Part III before beginning to write the exam. 3. You may have with you a course outline which you have had a substantial part in preparing. You may not have access to the casebook. You may not make or cause to be made any copy of this exam. 4. You must turn in these questions together with your exam answers. Please write your exam number at the top right of this page now. 1 PART I: SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS (45 minutes) These questions are aimed at testing your detailed understanding of course concepts and significant cases. Keep your answers short and to the point. 1. Explain these technical terms of defamation law: a. Colloquium b. Inducement c. Innuendo d. Libel per quod 2. Explain the meaning(s) and significance(s) of the word “malice” as it applies to the law of dignitary torts. Give examples to illustrate your explanation(s). 3. a. On what grounds did Judge Wright rule in favor of President Clinton in Paula Jones’s lawsuit against him? b.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem with New York Times Co. V. Sullivan: an Argument for Moving from a Falsity Model of Libel Law to a Speech Act Model, 11 First Amend
    FIRST AMENDMENT LAW REVIEW Volume 11 | Issue 1 Article 6 9-1-2012 The rP oblem with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: An Argument for Moving from a Falsity Model of Libel Law to a Speech Act Model Ashley Messenger Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/falr Part of the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Ashley Messenger, The Problem with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: An Argument for Moving from a Falsity Model of Libel Law to a Speech Act Model, 11 First Amend. L. Rev. 172 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/falr/vol11/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in First Amendment Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PROBLEM WITH NEW YORK TIMES CO. V SULLIVAN: AN ARGUMENT FOR MOVING FROM A "FALSITY MODEL" OF LIBEL LAW TO A "SPEECH ACT MODEL" ASHLEY MESSENGER* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................. ........ 173 I. THE SULLIVAN OPINION ........................ .......... 177 II. THE PROBLEM WITH SULLIVAN................................ 180 III. WAYS COURTS HAVE USED LIBEL DEFENSES TO COVER THE "GAP" ............. ..................... .... 189 A. Neutral Reportage Privilege .......... ............... 190 B. Fair Report Privilege........... ...... .. ........... 193 C. Substantial Truth.............................. 195 D. Third-Party Allegation Rule ..................... 196 E. Statements of Opinion .................... ...... 198 IV. RELEVANT PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES .................... 210 A. Propositions ............................ ..... 210 B. Speech Acts: Propositions Plus "Force" ............ 212 C. The Speech Acts Relevant to Libel Law....................... 213 1. Assertions.............................. 214 2. Telling ................................... 216 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Libel Law Worth Reforming?
    IS LIBEL LAW WORTH REFORMING? DAVID A. ANDERSON t TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................. 488 I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF DEFAMATION ............ 493 A. Actual Malice ............................... 493 B. Convincing Clarity ............................ 494 C. Independent Review ........................... 495 D. Summary Judgment .......................... 498 E. Public Figures ............................... 500 F. PrivatePlaintiffs ............................. 501 G. Neutral Reportage ............................ 503 H. Falsity .................................... 504 I. Nonfactual Expressions ........................ 505 J. What Remains Is Not a GeneralRemedy for Defamation . 509 II. THE RESIDUAL REMEDY ......................... 510 A. ProtractedLitigation ......................... 510 B. Uncontrolled Damages ........................ 513 C. Intrusion into EditorialProcesses .................. 516 D. Diverting the Inquiry Away from Truth ............. 521 E. PrejudicingDefendants ......................... 522 III. THE REPUTATIONAL AND SOCIAL COSTS .............. 524 A. Reputational Costs ............................ 524 B. Social Costs ................................. 531 IV. OPPORTUNITIES FOR REFORM ..................... 537 A. Reconsidering the ConstitutionalLaw .............. 537 B. Litigation Costs .............................. 541 C. Politics of Reform ............................. 546 CONCLUSION .................................... 550 t Thompson & Knight Centennial Professor, University of Texas
    [Show full text]