Here's my last blog post before the end of the semester.
As you review the course material, pause a moment and consider which of the major cases we discussed is your most favorite, or the one you love to hate. Name the case and give a one or two sentence summary of the case, and then include why you love or hate it so. Impress me with your critical thinking skills, or at the very least, let me know why the case inspires strong feelings within you.
I intend this to be lighthearted, but also as a way for you to review the media law material.
Please remember to include your first name, last name initial and which class you're in (MW, TTh morning or TTh afternoon).
61 comments:
It really is a tough decision, since many of the cases we have studied throughout the semester fascinate me. In all honesty, this catches me by surprise, as many of the things that I had heard about Media Law class prior to taking it weren't so great. By now, I've realized that it is a matter of perspective. The more I immersed myself in the actual cases, the more interesting the entire subject became to me.
Back to the topic at hand, I will have to go with Snyder v. Phelps. In this case, Albert Snyder sued Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Phelps along with Westboro Baptist Church chose the funeral of Albert Snyder's son Matthew, a Marine who died in the Iraq War, to protest and broadcast their beliefs. The Court ruled in favor of Phelps, stating that this form of speech held in a public place is protected by the First Amendment.
I chose this case mainly because of my opinion about the Westboro Baptist Church. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who harbors rather negative feelings (to put it lightly) toward WBC, and for the longest time I did not understand why they are allowed to do the things that they do. It didn't make any sense to me that a group, religious or not, would be allowed to do something as outrageous as picketing at a funeral. It wasn't until Media Law class that I began to fully understand the importance of them being allowed to do so. If we want free speech, we can't arbitrarily decide what and when it is acceptable to say something just because it may hurt someone's feelings. Even if we find a person's words or actions repulsive, we must honor their right to voice their opinion. That is the essence of the First Amendment, and I believe that I've finally fully understood it.
Frank M. MW 330-450
My favorite case of the semester is the landmark case we talk about all of the time - NYT V. U.S.
I enjoy this case because it is RELEVANT. Prior Restraint should RARELY be allowed. Freedom of the Press is more so important today because of the Internet. The day we have to start worrying about what we can or can not post online is the day we have to look in the mirror and decide if we are going to fight for our first amendment rights.
I think of when Wikileaks broke Afghan war stories in August 2010 and how Daniel Ellsberg supported what Julian Assange was doing by way of an Op-Ed piece in the NYT. I'm not picking sides but it is obvious there are correlations between this case and Wikileaks / Edward Snowden today. I also think it is NOTABLE how Ellsberg chose to express his first amendment right in the newspaper he originally gave the Pentagon Papers too almost 40 years earlier.
I look forward to seeing how these types of cases unfold in the future
T/Th. 2:00 p.m.
My favorite case we discussed this semester was Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC. Staffers from ABC’s PrimeTime Live news magazine show went undercover and documented the mishandling of food at Food Lion. Food Lion sued and won at trail, awarded some $5.5 million in punitive damages but the judge reduced the award to $315,000. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals took it further and reduced the award to $2 for trespass and breach of duty. The rest of the damage reward was thrown out.
The reason I chose this case is because I found it interesting that Food Lion accused ABC of trespass, fraud and breach of the duty of loyalty but not libel. Food Lion not suing for libel proves that they knew they were in the wrong and the information released was true. You would think that the Food Lion would want to address the mishandling of food in the store but instead they did not want to have that conversation. I also enjoyed this case because I thought it was interesting that the Fourth Circuit reduced the damage reward to $2. It makes me laugh to see that amount awarded to someone but in this case I feel there was nothing the Food Lion could do because it was the truth and was something the public should be aware of.
• The Hustler magazine vs. Falwell, known as the Larry Flynt Case, was my favorite cases that we discussed. Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine, a pornographic magazine, published a sexual innuendo and humorous Campari Liquor ad that involved Rev. Jerry Falwell talking about his first time drinking Campari. The ad had suggested he had sexual relations with his mother in an outhouse.
• I find the case to be important for defining who is a public and private figure. Anyone who is a public figure can be poked fun at even a Reverend. It shows that no matter how or what you are well known for; a public figure is expected to have positive and negative criticisms in all forms of media outlets and forums. I suppose it inspires strong feelings with the case because to be a public figure you have to expect that people are going to make fun of you. Having a pornographic magazine place an admired Reverend in an alcohol and sexual innuendo commentary advertisement is humorous and ironic by the contrast of the individuals in this case.
Erika H. MW afternoon
My favorite case of the semester is Sipple V. Chronicle Publishing Co., California appeals court, 1984. In this case a former U.S. Marine, Oliver Sipple, disrupted an assassination attempt on President Gerald Ford. Everyone viewed him as a hero and a San Francisco columnist saw an opportunity to point out that gay men can be heroes too. Sipple was a homosexual and had been active in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade. However, Sipple told them not to put that detail in the story because his family in Michigan and employer did not know about it. Upon finding out, his parents dis-owned him and Sipple sued for invasion of privacy (reporting private facts). The court held that his sexual orientation was newsworthy.
I liked this case because it brings a good topic. Anyone would love to be on the cover of a newspaper or magazine and viewed as a hero, but once you have stardom and fame or become a "local celebrity" all of your information is going to be revealed to the public. His "60 seconds of fame" were life-changing, but not in a good way. It was very sad that his family dis-owned him. It was crazy how the court held that his sexual orientation was newsworthy. I don't believe his sexual orientation changed the main fact and focus of the story: that he saved the president's life.
I also liked it because it's so weird how different things are in just a matter of years. I think if this happened today, being a homosexual wouldn't have been the main focus of the story. Just because it's not as rare as it was back then.
Christina G.
TTH afternoon
One of my favorite cases that we discussed this semester is Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ ABC. Two ABC workers use fake IDs and hidden cameras in order to be hired at Food Lion and document how they handle food. The cameras caught awful and disgusting mishandling of food. Food Lion accused ABC of trespass, fraud, and breach of duty of loyalty. Of course, they do not sue for libel because all of what the ABC workers caught on camera was true! Food Lion won at trial and was awarded $5.5 million in punitive damages, but the Fourth Circuit reduced the award to a mere $2.
Ah the sheer justice, I love it! I think it is fantastic that the court gave the win to Food Lion on the grounds of trespass, fraud, and breach of duty, but truly the win goes to ABC for revealing the horrible things Food Lion was letting their customers purchase and eat. This case is particularly attractive to me because I am a bit of a germaphobe and have a fear of diseased meat, so I love ABC for bringing the truth to the public on this serious health issue.
Victoria L.
TTh 2:00
Alisha Ebrahimji
T/TH 2:00
There were a few cases like many of my peers have stated that struck a cord with me and that I found interesting.
The Sanders v. Acclaim Entertainment case is the first one of my favorites that I can think of because I really hate when people blame the media for their actions. I think it's up to the individual to make decisions and take action based on their own merit. But to say that a video game influenced the decisions of the Columbine shooters is just absurd.
The following quotes were taken from http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Sanders_v._Acclaim_Entertainment but I think they summarize the decision well.
Luckily, federal District Judge Lewis Thornton Babcock dismissed it "for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."
Judge Thornton added that the movie and videogame companies owed no duty to Sanders' widow and children because it was not foreseeable that Klebold and Harris' violent actions were "the likely consequence of exposure to videogames or movies," and because "there is social utility in expressive and imaginative forms of entertainment even if they contain violence."
The case I would to discuss is Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing. In this particular case Oliver Sipple was identified as the man that saved President Ford from an assassination attempt by the San Francisco Chronicle, but Sipple was also identified as a prominent member of the San Francisco gay community. Sipple claimed that information was not newsworthy and should not have been disclosed, despite his blatant advocacy. The court claimed the information was already public, due to Sipple publicly advocating, and therefore wasn't an act of malice. I believe it should be noted that Sipple's mother was very conservative and reportedly disowned him, and due to being labeled a "gay ex-marine" only received a letter from President Ford instead of a visitation to the White House. Obviously this can be a discuss of ethics, but I believe Sipple became an imperative part in a gay rights movement in politics led by Harvey Milk. Sipples disputes are understandable; it may be asking a lot of Sipple to take the flack, but without him we may not have been at the point at which we are at today with homosexuality and the government.
Andrew G. 2 p.m. TTH
The case I love to hate is Snyder v. Phelps. It frustrates me so much because I understand the legal reasons, but my ethics get in the way of that logic. Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral of a marine who was killed in duty because they believed God was punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality. The marines father, Snyder, brought a case against the church, Phelps, for intentional infliction of emotional distress and won in the lower courts but eventually lost because the court ruled that the church's comments were protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Even though the church was peacefully protesting on a public sidewalk, and even though Snyder did not see the comments until after the funeral, I still find the protest unethical. It is against my personal ethics to use someone else's loss of life as your gain. I think that funerals should be respected and every family should be able to have their moment of grief without someone dragging their family into a political disagreement.
Nicole Schnell
TTh 11 a.m.
I enjoyed many cases that we discussed this semester. One of my favorites would have to be Hustler magazine v Falwell. The case was about Larry Flynt's magazine, Hustler magazine, making fun of Jerry Falwell in a fake interview about his "first time." I thought it was really funny. Falwell sued for appropriation, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. I thought that was a bit ridiculous. I understood why he would be upset about it, but it was a joke that no one took seriously. So personally, I thought it was a bit funny that he sued for all of those things and eventually won none. I agree with the USSC about intentional infliction having the same standards as libel. People would sue for intentional infliction if they can't win a libel suit.
Kaleigh Knemoeller TTH 11am
The case that I least enjoyed was MASSON v. NEW YORKER MAGAZINE. When the jury agreed that Masson was libeled, but couldn’t agree on damages, so a mistrial was declared. And at re-trial, a second jury ruled against Masson, and an appellate court upheld that ruling.
I think that they jury is obligated to agree on the amount and given a time limit. Even though Masson shouldn't of won in my mind, I don't think that was fair for them to say he won then brush it off to the side just because they couldn't agree on an amount.
-Jared Dyer Media Law, T,TR 11-12:30 p.m.
I have a few cases that really caught my attention but for the sake of just picking one, it would have to be the Food Lion v. Capital Cities.
This case involved the two ABC reporters going undercover with false identification and using hidden cameras to unveil the bad practices by Food Lion. They were basically recycling spoiled food and reselling them.
Even though the reporters did use false identification, I still think Food Lion was more at fault of being wrong. This case just really makes me think "how far is too far?". Also, Food Lion sued for trespassing and fraud but why would they even attempt this when they knew what they were doing was wrong. They should have just admitted their wrong doing and been done with it. Like the old saying goes "don't dish it if you can't take it". They should have expected to get caught when doing something so wrong and potentially harmful.
Audrey C-- MW
The case I love to hate is Westboro Baptist Church v. Snyder. I guess the way I feel about this case is how Falwell felt about the Hustler Magazine article.
In this class I learned to understand the reasoning behind why courts decide the way they do according to the first amendment. That even if it is an unpopular idea, it is still permit able to express it; even if it's protesting gay people outside of military funerals. (Which by the way, I have no idea how someone could ever think to do that since there is no direct connection between the two.)
LK MW 3:30-4:50
I love to hate the Snyder v. Phelps which was the case where the westboro babtist church protested on public property near funeral of a marine Matthew Snyder and his dad Albert Snyder sued them for intentionally inflicting emotional distress.
I hate this case because it makes me so mad that the first amendment can protect these awful people who are protesting near a marine who served for our country, helped the United States in war and when he dies at his funeral this "church" they call themselves can protest because they think he deserved to die, that God made him die and they don't care that it's his funeral with his family. It's so inconsiderate and crazy to me that that's allowed and legal. I don't like this case because in my opinion I think its horrible and the family should have gotten money from them and i wish westboro babtist church wasn't allowed to do that.
Morgan McAlister TH 2:00
My favorite case was the FOOD LION V. CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS case. It was about ABC’s PrimeTime Live news magazine show sending staffers undercover, applying for jobs at Food Lion with hidden cameras, recording for a week what happens in the meat market. It was documented they were mishandling food so they put it on blast primetime! Eventually Food Lion won, but to the sound of ABC only having to pay $2 in damages because they reported on the truth and it outweighed the disloyal "employees." This case was so damn funny. It had everything, it made me laugh, made me cry, and in the end Food Lion really didn't win. Media Law always sounded so boring and heavily content based with no room for laughter or fun, but this semester completely surprised me and I enjoyed learning about all the many crazy cases that have actually gone to trial, no matter how ridiculous. It was completely in the public's interest to show the footage of the mishandling of food because it could have hurt somebody or killed them even.
Kayla U. T/TH 2:00 pm
My favorite case was Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC. ABC reporters used false identification cards to get jobs at Food Lion stores, using hidden cameras to document the mishandling of food, particularly at the meat counter. Food Lion sued, accusing ABC of trespass, fraud and breach of the duty of loyalty. However, they couldn't sue for libel because the mishandling of the food was true, and there was video proof. In the end, Food Lion won, but the damage award was reduced from $5.5 million to $2.
I think this case was entertaining to learn about because it was fair. Though ABC did do everything they were charged with, Food Lion had done its own major wrongs and was punished in its own way by basically getting nothing in damages. It's hard to believe that a court would actually do this; it seems like this wouldn't occur in the courts, but it's good to see because ABC's heart was in the right place even if its methods were not so legal. The victory for Food Lion was hollow because the courts saw through their façade and actually gave a logical, yet court legal ruling.
-Julianna H.
MW 3:30 p.m.
Nicholas Niedzielski
TTH 11
The case that stuck with me the most was BJF v. Florida Star, mostly because it shows the struggle between the law and ethics. The facts are that the newspaper printed the name of a sexual assault victim. It was ruled that since the name was not properly redacted by the police department, the newspaper was legally allowed to print the name. But it brought up a bigger ethical issue. Even though it was technically legal to print it, most papers wouldn't, simply because the ethical thing to do is to protect the victims identities. So it just brought up an interesting argument about whether one outweighs the other and that is why it is the case that stuck with me the most.
The most interesting case to me was Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co. Sipple disrupted an assassination attempt on President Gerald Ford in a crowd of people in San Francisco. He was a U.S. Marine whose natural instinct was to protect. I consider Sipple to be an involuntary public figure because of the publicity he got afterward. I like the angle the Chronicle Publishing Co. took by regarding him as a hero and homosexual but I think they should have gotten his permission first to disclose his sexual orientation especially because of the times. I don't imagine the early 1980's as a time that many people were open about coming out. Though what the Chronicle did was legal, I don't think it was fair to Sipple. It's more of an ethical issue than a legal one.
Mindy G.
TTH 11am
I seriously enjoyed so many of the cases that we went over this semester. Many of them were incredibly interesting to me, especially the cases with satire.
I think my favorite is still Hustler v. Falwell. In this case, Reverend Jerry Falwell was a man who had long criticized Hustler Magazine, so the magazine jabbed right back. There was a popular liquor ad at the time for Campari liquor that showed people talking about "their first time." Hustler magazine then recreated the ad with a fictitious interview with Falwell, where he described "his first time" being with his mother in an outhouse.
Link to the ad: http://bit.ly/1cUE7Ho
Falwell then sued for libel, appropriation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court rejected the libel claim because the ad parody was so outlandish that a reasonable person would not find it to be true. The appropriation claim was also dismissed because it was not an actual advertisement. The court did, however, find that the ad was published with intentional infliction of emotion distress and awarded Falwell with $200,000 for compensatory and punitive damages. The Federal Appellate Court then affirmed that decision, so the case went to USSC. By a unanimous 8-0 vote, the Court overturned that judgement because they did not want to allow a surge of public officials suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress because they couldn't win in a libel case. The ad was also seen by the court to be similar to a political cartoon.
These types of cases are most interesting to me because I do believe that this type of satire or parody should be protected by the First Amendment. Imagine a world without Saturday Night Live! Bump that. I also strongly support their tactic to avoid so many intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuits as an excuse for public officials when they can't sue for libel. Very smart and forward-thinking decision from USSC.
Miguel Martinez
MW 3:30 p.m.
My favorite case of the semester would have to be Food Lion V. Capitol Cities/ABC.
The case involves two ABC reporters who got wind that Food Lion grocery was mishandling their produce. Two ABC reporters go under cover at two different locations and find (and capture on video) that they were in fact mishandling chicken and other produce.
This case interest me for many reasons. The first is my grandfather owned many grocery stores in East Texas, so growing up around the industry I know Food Lion was definitely in the wrong and it shocked me to find out a store allowed that to happen. Another reason is that Food Lion did not sue for libel, but for trespass, fraud and breach of duty. This is funny to me because Food Lion tried so hard to get the attention off of their stores mishandling the food by trying to make ABC look bad. Food Lion won and was awarded $5.5 million dollars but in the end at the Fourth Circuit it was reduced to $2. The decision shows that even though the case on paper says it was about fraud, breach of duty and trespass, it was really all about libel.
Savannah H.
TTh afternoon
Cody Jenkins
MW 3:30-4:50
I would say my favorite case was the New York Times vs United States case.
The main reason for this is that it limits "prior restraint" to only material that is shown to contain "grave danger." With this ruling, the journalists have more protection against government, and the government has a responsibility to keep documents and information that is in the public's best interests.
With the "marketplace of ideas" framework that has been a part of our nation from the beginning, it is important that information that is not harmful be distributed to citizens equally and efficiently.
So many to choose from! There have been so many cases that have intrigued me, in good ways and bad. I have really enjoyed learning about the cases and doing further research on them!
However, I believe the one that got me the most riled up was Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co. Oliver Sipple was a former U.S. Marine that saved President Gerald Ford from an assassination attempt. A columnist at the San Francisco Chronicle decided to write a story about Sipple, praising him for saving the president and attempting to show people that all homosexuals weren't "sissies". Although Sipple was prominent in the San Francisco gay community, his family back home did not know he was gay. He requested that this information not be included in the article so that his family would not find out, but the columnist put the information in anyways and his family dis-owned him. Sipple then sued for invasion of privacy (private facts) and lost because the columnist argued that the facts were "newsworthy".
It was legal, but what a load of bullshit. He saved the president. That is newsworthy enough. These days, it probably wouldn't matter to most people. They would get over it. But this was in the 1980's when there was such a stigma around homosexuality. This guy's life was torn apart and the columnist gets away scot-free because it was "newsworthy". ugh.
Kendall H.
MW 3:30
Blogger Diana Garcia said...
Although there are many cases to choose from, one of my favorites is TX v. Johnson, the flag burning case. In TV v. Johnson, Johnson was protesting the policies of the Regan Administration and in doing so burned the U.S. flag. He was arrested for vandalizing respected objects, however his case ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court and the charges were dropped against Johnson.
The reason that I like this case is because it shows who we are as Americans and what our Constitution means to us. A flag is a national symbol of who we are. Flags stand for pride and patriotism amongst so many other things. To accept that someone can burn a such a symbol and have that be a protected form of speech provided by the same nation who's flag you are burning, to me, shows a great nation.
It's not to say I condone flag burning or that I'm okay with it, but it just shows me that even under those circumstances the US Supreme Court will stand by the flag burner in order to protect his speech, even if it means destroying something that for many is important
Diana Garcia MW Class
Monica I.
TTH 2PM
My favorite case from this semester is Cohen v. California.
Cohen wore a jacket that had “Fuck the Draft” printed on the back into an Los Angeles courthouse. He was arrested for disturbing the peace by offensive conduct. The key question for this case was whether or not the word “fuck” was considered offensive conduct, and if this word is protected by the First Amendment and the freedom of speech. The lower courts ruled that “offensive conduct” is defined as behavior that provokes acts of violence and in turn disturbs the peace. Supreme Court granted a certiorari and overturned the lower court’s ruling. The justices emphasized that “speech” is not “conduct” and this came from the precedent in United States v. O’Brien.
The reason why this case was my favorite from the semester is because it displays how not only people get offended by words that are not meant for them, but also because it shows how as citizens we can exercise our speech on what we believe regarding the government and controversial issues. Since Cohen was not doing anything to intentionally hurt anyone or cause actual harm, I agree with this Supreme Court’s verdict. This explains the reason why Justic Harlan says “Fuck” wasn’t even considered a “fighting word” because no one felt it was a “direct personal insult.”He was simply exercising his free speech of his opinion of the draft.
My favorite case out of this whole semester would be Sullivan v. New York Times case because it answered the question that separates the criticism of celebrities and athletes. Me being a big sports fan, it helped me understand why not sports center and espn can criticize college athletes such as johnny football.
AJ - M-W
I honestly didn't think I would be stumped on this question! I enjoyed several of the cases we learned over the course of the semester. However, my favorite would have to be New York Times v. Unites States.
In this case, the question came down to whether or not the government can stop newspapers from publishing information because of its perceived threat to national security, particularly the Pentagon Papers. In a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled that the government does not have the right to use prior restraint on a newspaper publication.
The reason I like this case so much is because it really is a landmark case, by placing so much importance on the 'freedom of speech' aspect of the First Amendment. I think it is essential that citizens are well-informed of what their government is doing in secrecy, and it is the newspapers jobs as a 'fourth branch' to expose this information to the public.
I also found it interesting that, after reading the opinions of the nine justices, the decision did not look like it would be in favor of New York Times. For example, Justice White and Stewart believed the newspaper articles would pose a threat to national security, but found that the government was unable to meet its heavy burden to prove that a threat was actually plausible.
Shelby Banning
TTH 11am
My favorite case from this semester was Hustler v. Falwell. Hustler Magazine featured a parody ad where Rev. Jerry Falwell says his first time was in an outhouse with his mother. Rev. Falwell sued Hustler for libel, appropriation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court rejected his libel and appropriation claims because the ad was so outlandish that a reasonable person would not believe it and because it was not a real ad. I liked this case because many parts of the case, such as the ad itself, were funny. Showing parts of the movie "The People Vs. Larry Flynt" also helped me to understand the case and made it easy to remember details. Finally, my favorite part of the case was that Falwell lost, he deserved it.
Amber L.
M-W
The Snyder v. Phelps case sticks out to me the most. This is the case where the Westboro Baptist Church protested near the funeral of a marine who was killed in Iraq serving our country. The marine’s dad, Albert Snyder sued them for many things, one of which was intentionally inflicting emotional distress. Snyder won in the lower courts, but lost the case in the Supreme Court.
This case just really angers me because I know it’s free expression, but I still think there should be some kind of line that shouldn’t be crossed. Over the break, I was reading a few news articles about Paul Walker’s death and one of them was talking about how the Westboro Baptist Church “vowed” to picket his funeral. They say God took him from the world because he “served the gods of this world (money, fame…etc.) when he should have been serving God”. I’m all for free expression, but why is it so necessary for them to choose funerals for their time and place. How would they feel if a group of protesters showed up to one of their family members funerals? And what Bible are they reading? Because the one I read says it’s not any of our places to judge, and the number one thing you should do is love. I recognize that they have the right to free expression, but I guess I just think they need to take a step back and think about the fact that they wouldn't have that right if it weren’t for soldiers like Matthew who fight for those rights. Anyway, this case was just interesting to me and I chose it because I have strong opinions about it.
Alyssa Wright - T/TH 2:00-3:20
One of my favorite cases that we discussed this semester was the case called, Cohen V. California, USSC 1971. In this case, Cohen, was against the Vietnam war and against being in the draft. One day he decides to spread his message by going into the court house with a jacket the says: "Fuck the draft." Although he was arrested for disturbing the peace, he argued that he had every right to do what he did, based on the first amendment and political expression. As a result, the court agrees and says that he is protected from what he did, because it simply was an expression.
What led me to like this case so much is how it reminded me of how powerful the 1st amendment can be, especially in comparison to other countries. For instance all citizens who live in America have the right to say as they please and do as they want, as long as it's not against the law. If they dislike something, hey, its okay. If they want to bad mouth an issue they don't agree with, once again, it's perfectly fine.
I think sometimes, I may not even realize how truly lucky I am to live in a country with such freedom, especially when it comes to speaking my mind, and I really like speaking my mind. I just really couldn't imagine living in a country where that freedom was limited or completely taken away. And although this case is quite humorous, it definitely is a reminder to be thankful for the rights that I have while living in this country.
Amy P. T/TH @ 11 am
Sipple V. Chronicle Publishing Co. is one of the cases I enjoyed the most. The out come of the case is heartbreaking for Sipple, but the ruling makes sense. The whole time we were discussing the case I wanted him to be protected, but the story couldn't be fought on the newsworthiness.
T-TH 3:30
I think I have to agree with others in saying that Snyder v. Phelps is a case that sticks out for me the most. For me this case really captures the spirit of freedom of speech in this country. The Westboro Baptist Church denounces a large part of the population- the homosexual community- in protest. This gets people upset. But where is this particular protest? At a solider's funeral. This makes even MORE people upset. No matter how an American feels about gay rights, I think it's hard for anyone to deny the disrespect shown by this group protesting at a funeral of someone who died for the country. This makes Westboro one of the most hated groups in the country and people obviously want to put a stop to it. So the father of the solider sues for emotional distress. But does he win? NO. Because this is America and Westboro has as much right to tell gays they're going to hell as gays have the right to say it right back. Some countries have anti-protest laws that would never have allowed protest from either side to happen. And that's the beauty of this country- we have the right to speak freely, on issues no matter if people agree or disagree with them.
Alexandra H. MW
I enjoyed the case involving "bong hits for jesus" or Morse v Frederick. This kid was not on school property holding up a sign that some would say is offensive. I think it is so outragous that few people could take that seriously. I remember we all got wasted in 7th grade at this kids party (on the weekend) and they called us in one by one to find out who supplied the alchohol (thanks to my older brother for 2 cases of Natty ice for 45 bucks... con artist) but the fact that the incident didnt take place on campus was what confused kids and parents. Why was it any of the schools concern about what we did in our free time off campus. Showing up to a football game drunk is different thatn hanging with your friends drinking a tall cold one at 13 years old. America
Although this is a tough decision I must say that my favorite case for this semester was the Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC case. ABC had undercover reporters pose as Food Lion staff to investigate their meat market tactics. The staffers discovered that the grocery store sold expired meat! When Food Lion found out about the undercover employees they excused them of trespass, fraud and breach of duty of loyalty. Even though Food Lion won on account of trespass and breach of duty they only got a $2 reward for the case. I think the amount of the damages is why this case is my favorite. It shows that even though what the ABC staff did was not right, selling expired meat and mixing it in with fresh meat was even more wrong! In class when professor Martinez announced to us the reward, I couldn't help myself but to laugh. Food Lion got exactly what they deserved. It may have been a loss for ABC, but overall it was a VERY BIG win!
I am always one to look at the expiration dates of food, so when ABC brought the attention to what Food Lion was doing I think it was fantastic! In the end it was a even bigger win for Food Lion's customers. People that bought food from that grocery store deserved to know the truth about their products!
Kaylee N.
T/TH 11am
Okay, I know we're supposed to just choose one, but I'm indecisive and can't possibly choose between the Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC case and Hustler Mag. v. Falwell. They're both so interesting!
What drew me to the Food Lion case in the beginning is the fact that I'm an employee at HEB, so I was immediately intrigued by a case involving a grocery store. This case involved ABC staffers creating false ID's and going undercover as employees at two different Food lion grocery stores where they reported on the mishandling of food in the meat department. While Food Lion sued ABC for trespass, fraud and breach of the duty of loyalty, it was sneaky that they left out Libel (because the information reported was TRUE). This is one of my favorite cases simply because the outcome makes me laugh. The Fourth Circuit awarded Food Lion a whopping $2.00 for trespass and breach of duty, basically getting back at the grocery store for trying to get out of addressing the truth. Way to show Food Lion who's boss!
Now, onto Hustler v. Falwell. This case literally makes me laugh out loud. So, Hustler publishes a false advertisement for a liquor asking Rev. Jerry Falwell when his "first time" was. The ad portrays that his "first time" was with his mother in an outhouse. Interesting. Of course, Falwell was disturbed by this. He sued Hustler Magazine for libel, appropriation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. While the District Court ruled out the libel and appropriation claims, they agreed that it did cause intentional emotional distress, awarding Falwell $200,000. But then, by a unanimous 8-0 decision, the USSC overturned the ruling. They compared the advertisement to political cartoons, stating that as a public official, criticism come with the territory. I enjoyed learning about this case because it was entertaining, which in turn made it easier to remember and study for.
Jennifer Grassano (TTH,2)
This is a difficult question to answer, as we have had so many great case studies this semester. I would say my favorite case is NYT v. United States for a few reasons. The first, I had always heard about the Pentagon Papers case, but never knew what it was or dealt with. I am glad I finally was able to get a thorough understanding of it, not just something I found on Wikipedia. It is a very interesting case. For me, it is very important because of the truth it displayed. The Founding Fathers created the Constitution to protect the people from the government dictating too much. They ruled seditious libel unconstitutional and threw out prior restraint as a means for government to dictate what was published. In the Pentagon Papers case, it is as if the government was censoring the public, but in the opposite way. Instead of just preventing publishing on the Vietnam War, they misled the public so they would be in favor of the war. They used false information to propagate to the public that the war was a positive action and we should all be in favor. The fact that this betrayal was not prevented from being published was a huge landmark for our country and the Supreme Court. I think they absolutely made the right choice.
For my least favorite case, it is kind of a two-in-one for me. Texas v. Johnson bothers me because it doesn’t outlaw flag burning. I understand not wanting to outlaw symbolic speech and I understand the implications of making flag burning illegal. It just bothers me to the core that burning our nation’s flag is allowed. But that’s just me. So the case U.S. v. O’brien, dealing with the burning of the draft card, is the second case that bugs me. I don’t really care about the USSC deciding against O’brien. What bothers me is the test for intermediate scrutiny that came out of it. First, we had strict scrutiny. This did not serve the purpose of the court for this case, and so they created intermediate scrutiny. I understand the reason for it, but for the court to have the power to create a new system tailored to their specific needs in one case is just kind of frightening. That’s when I realized how powerful the court is.
Anna Strickland T&Th 11 a.m.
Out of the many cases we have covered this semester, I enjoyed Hustler Magazine v. Falwell the most.
Maybe it's the way that the statement "Rev. Falwell's first time was in an outhouse with his mother" rolls off the tongue, or that Hustler magazine brilliantly gets away with such a crude statement.
Aside from the facts of the case itself, watching the video clip made me like the case even more. Seeing the characters come to life made it even more comical - who knew a USSC case could be humorous!
Humor and jokes aside, this case set the standard that public officials must prove actual malice in emotional distress claims. I can't imagine where would we be today if parody ads making fun of public figures were not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Brooke Boriack (T/Th 11 am)
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell by far was my favorite case. I think it's completely ridiculous that Falwell got his panties in a bunch. On the ad it said below the advertisement in a disclaimer:
"Ad Parody-Not to Be Taken Seriously." It says right on the ad that Falwell does not really have sex with his mother in an outhouse.
I agree with the supreme courts decision in this case. This advertisement is really a political cartoon over religion, religious creeds, or the pulpit in American life. It really grinds my gears when people freak out and start sewing people.
I loved that in the movie “The People v. Larry Flint.” Flint, was categorically unapologetic and completely apathetic to the whole case. You would think that common decency would prevail but I think it’s great that the Court made (in my humble opinion) the right decision regarding this First Amendment Right
T-TR 2pm
Alex P. T/Th 11 a.m.
My favorite case to learn about and one that surprised me was Hustler v. Falwell. If I read the facts of the case I would've thought that Falwell would've won even at the USSC level. I can easily see how much this would've impacted his image. Anyone would be upset about this parody or not. Although I understand the court's ruling on how it is a parody and comparing it to a political cartoon. It would be too hard for the court to rule in the favor of every case if they did not send rules such as that one. It is shocking to me though since Falwell did have a reputation to up hold and the statements were very defamatory. I see why the court ruled the way they did it is just surprising how someone's reputation can be easily damaged even if it is a parody.
The Food Lion v Capital Cities/ABC was one of the first cases we talked about and struck my interest. Food Lion was selling bad meat to the public and a news reporter got wind of it and a couple reporters went in under cover and published a story talking about it.
This case took so many turns and kept my interest throughout. It is silly that Food Lion thinks that doing something unethical is fine yet when they get caught they try to point fingers at someone else. Even though they technically won the court case in the end, I think ABC came out on top. A 2$ reward for damages of trespassing and fraud isn't exactly rewarding in my opinion. ABC had the best intentions in this situation, and I was pleased to hear the result of this case.
Amy T. M/W 3:30-4:50
In Hustler v. Falwell, Rev. Falwell sues Hustler Magazine because of an ad the magazine had published but ends up losing because the court says the ad parody is protected by the first amendment. This case sticks out to me because of the ad itself and the rule the Supreme Court established that public figures must prove actual malice.
T/TH 11am
There are many cases that stood out to me over the semester. The number I liked and found interesting outweighs the ones I didn't.
If I were to choose one that I enjoyed the most I would have to pick Hustler V. Farewell.
The publisher of Hustler magazine, Larry Flynt published a parody of a well known Campari advertisement describing peoples "first time." The parody ad depicted Rev Jerry Farewell having his "first time" with his mother in an outhouse. Farewell sued Hustler for libel, appropriation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but loses on all claims.
This case was humorous and enjoyable and watching the video clips in class helped me better understand the judges rulings in the case.
Ross Pirtle
t/Th 2:00
Hands down the least favorite that literally brought bile up from my stomach was Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition. The idea or notion that anything depicting a child engaged in a sexual act is legal is appalling. Having worked with and know many children who have been sexually abused I can not fathom a government that would permit such a vile thing for any use. I am sure there can be a strong link formed between this and subsequent harm to children even if the government failed to meet its burden of proof within this particular case. The protection of minors should supersede the freedom of speech allotted to us by our beloved constitution. If our government can ban freedom of speech, or enact prior restraint, for protection of the nation itself it can damn well ban freedom of expression/speech for the protection of our children.
A Marquez
T/TH 2:00
Food Lion v. Capital Cities (ABC)
ABC's Primetime Live magazine sent two people undercover to work at Food Lion grocery store. While they worked there they discovered that food was being mishandled and sold past its expiration. The undercover journalists published their finding and Food Lion sued. At first, Food Lion won $315,000 in punitive damages but then the fourth circuit court of appeals reduced the award to $2 for trespass and breach of duty.
This is my favorite case from the semester because I found it interesting that the journalists went as far as obtaining a job at Food Lion just to get inside information for their story. The fact that Food Lion never sued for libel goes to show that they were aware that they were not handling food up to the health code's par and that everything that the journalists reported was in fact true because they had witnessed it first hand. Another reason I like this case is because of the drastic reduction of damage award by the fourth circuit court of appeals from $315,000 to a mere $2. That makes a bold statement that yes, the journalists may have been trespassing- but Food Lion needed to be caught and the journalists' reportings only exemplified the truth.
My favorite case would have to be, hand's down, Hustler v Falwell, just because it was just such an OUTRAGEOUS incident and I found it absolutely hilarious how Falwell reacted! It is definitely fair that, as a country which practices free speech, while Falwell can tear down the pornography industry, Hustler can do the same to Falwell. It was completely obvious that no right person would believe this ad to be true, yet Falwell still reacted as if it harmed his reputation. Hilarious!
My least favorite, just because of the outcome of the case, would have to be a tie between BJF v Florida Star and Sipple v Chronicle. While the rulings make sense due to circumstances or the time period, it's sad what had become of these people because of it. A strong example of where the journalist's ethics should've kicked in.
Michele A. (MW 3:30)
I'm definitely not alone when I say my favorite case is Hustler v. Falwell. When we first started discussing this case in class, I almost thought it was a joke. In this situation, Hustler publishes a false advertisement for Campari liquor and asks Rev. Falwell when his "first time" was. The ad expresses that Falwell's first time was in an outhouse with his mother... I mean, who would seriously take an ad like that literally? Clearly it was a parody, just like the people of Campari liquor company said it was, but Falwell still wasn't happy. He sued Hustler magazine for libel, appropriation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Now, can we all just take a moment to laugh a little? I really thought this was hilarious! As with most of my peers, this case stuck out this most to me because of how ridiculous it was. It offered some entertainment in class and was definitely much easier to remember than some of the other cases when it came to studying for the exam!
Nicolle Beltz
T/TH: 2-3:20
My least favorite cases were Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman. The USSC ruled in favor of the flag burning defendants. I understand why the majority based its opinion on the basis of symbolic speech, and said they cannot prohibit expression because society itself finds the idea to be offensive. However, I cannot seem to fathom why our government wouldn't protect the US flag and its symbolic representations to our country. What stuck out the most for me is when Dr. Martinez mentioned the irony of the case: Johnson/Eichman are protected by the same freedoms the flag represents. Maybe that point alone is why I absolutely dislike the flag burning cases. And then, I dislike them even more when Congress failed to pass a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited physical flag desecration, and failed to pass by only short by one vote on the Senate side. Throughout the semester, this class has really opened my eyes to why the USSC rules in the ways they do, and in mostly all of the cases we covered, I usually end up agreeing with the USSC, but not in the flag burning cases. The flag is the most sacred and symbolic artifact of our nation and I think the government should do everything in their power to protect it. And that is why I believe the USSC should have ruled against the defendants in the flag burning cases than how they ruled in the other First Amendment cases.
C. McGee
TTH 2:00
I thought that Hustler VS Falwell was probably one of my favorite cases! Reverent Falwell finds out about the ad in Hustler magazine and decides to sue. I like this case so much because Falwell ends up losing! When I first learned about the case I thought that he would end up winning. And there was kind of no way for him to prove malice anyways!
James White
T/TH 2:00 p.m.
Although it's hard to choose my favorite case of the semester, I'm going to go with Roe v. Wade. This is the case in which the supreme court held that the decision to have an abortion is a private matter, protected by the right of privacy. It is a matter of personal choice and not state control. I chose this case because abortion is still such a big topic in politics today, although this case took place in 1973. I often would hear of this case in debates or on the news whenever abortion was discussed, but never actually took the time to see what it was about. After taking this class, I've gotten my fair share of abortion laws and now feel well informed.
I enjoyed the Food Lion case. I never really heard of them especially in Dallas. Thinking about how your food is handled is very intense. My least favorite ones where the ones regarding discrimination towards homosexuals and about women's bodies like the cases with Planned Parenthood. I learned a lot from these cases so I dont really dislike any of them but some of them are a little upsetting...
My favorite case is is the Hustler V Falwell case, while I personally don't agree with the rulings of the court it was still a very interesting case and it was actually pretty shocking to me that Hustler was able to slander Falwell in such an extreme way and still completely get away with it. I learned a lot from this case and found it to be very interesting as I wasn't very shocked by the courts decision until this case.
My favorite case is the Hustler V Falwell case. In this case Falwell sued hustler magazine for libel, appropriation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court rejected the libel claim because the ad parody was so outlandish that a reasonable person would not find it to be true. Not only was it a funny case to study it also taught me a lot about what is actually acceptable and what you can get away with. When we first looked at the case I was for sure that hustler was going to be sued like crazy and would face multiple other penalties, I had no idea they were going win the case. Even though the court initially rules a $200,000 fine it was later overruled by an 8-0 vote. Definitely my favorite because like the court said it was incredibly outlandish
Jared Atzenhoffer
(TTH 2-3:20)
A case that I hate but that is also important to me is Snyder v. Phelps. The case is important to me in the fact that if I didn't take Media Law I still wouldn't fully understand the significance and importance of our right to free speech given to us in the First Amendment. Having the right to voice your opinion and not be punished for it is the United States to the core and I couldn't imagine it any other way. In Snyder v. Phelps, Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) was sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress by Albert Snyder. Snyder's son Matthew was a Marine who lost his life in the Iraq War and it was at his funeral that Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church chose to protest at. The Court ruled in Phelps' favor stating that he was in a public place and that the speech was protected by the First Amendment. I personally cannot stand Westboro Baptist Church and I won't lie and say that my bias towards them didn't influence my dislike for the case but it's also the level of disrespect presented also. I completely agree with the Court's ruling 110%. My problem is that a family just lost their son and you are choosing to be so disrespectful to protest at a funeral?! Someone lost their life whether you agree with their reasons or not. Be a human being and show compassion and shut up. Sorry, it just really ticks me off but Media Law has actually made me become very involved and interested in the cases we've studied.
Lauren Kurie. Tuesday/Thursday 2:00
United States v Alvarez was a case I really loved because I actually can agree with both sides. The case had to deal with a water district board member named Javier Alvarez, who lied about being a Marine and a Medal of Honor recipient. There was already a federal law that made it illegal to lie about military honors called the Stolen Valor Act,which Alvarez was arrested for violating. So, the legal question was, does the Stolen Valor Act violate free speech? The USSC voted 6-3 yes and overturned Alvarez's conviction. What I mostly loved about this case was the judges' statements on the ruling. My favorite is, "The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth." However, it was such a hard decision to stand by because I do believe a case like this discredits the military. These men and women deserve their honor and it should not be tainted. Nonetheless, it is a big win for free speech. Ultimately, I guess I agree with the decision. I just wish it wouldn't have the military involved.
-Olivia Garcia TTH 2:00pm
I think my favorite would have to be the Gertz v. Welch USSC 1974 case. This case involves a black man who ends up getting shot and killed by a police officer who was white. The officer is tried for murder in Chicago and the family sues the officer for wrongful death. Elmer Gertz, who is representing the family, is accused by Welch, publisher of the American Opinion Magazine, saying he is a communist, anti-police, and anti-law. Gertz says this isn't true, the facts are false, and sues for libel. At first, Gertz wins at trial with $50,000 in damages but the money damage is taken away from him and he is told he must prove actual malice. The USSC votes in a 5-4 in favor of Gertz saying he shouldn't have to prove actual malice because he had done nothing to seek public figure status in this case. I like this case because it creates another standard for the court. It recognized wrongful doing in this case, that an innocent person should not be accused of something as he was not aiming for public status, just merely representing a family and trying to do his job. This new standard allowed the court to hold that states may let private persons such as Gertz win libel suits against the media by proving a level of fault short of actual malice: Negligence.
Kayla B. T TH Afternoon
One of my favorite cases that we discussed during this semester was the Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ ABC. I found this case particularly interesting because of the under cover aspect that goes along with this case. I love the idea of uncovering something huge like this that many people would care about.
The ABC workers used false identification and hidden cameras to uncover the mishandling of food at Food Lion. They were using expired meat products and trying to cover the smell etc. with condiments such as BBQ sauce and even some things as drastic as bleach.
When the story came out Food Lion accused ABC of trespass, fraud and breach of duty of loyalty, they did not however sue for libel because all of the information ABC put in the story was true. Food Lion won at trial but was only awarded $5.5 million in punitive damages, which on first reaction seems crazy. It was later that the Fourth Circuit reduced it to only $2.
I love that Food Lion was brought to justice for what was wrong. In the end, they got what they deserved.
Jordan Lee T/Th 2pm
The case that stood out to me the most was the Hustler Magazine v Larry Falwell. This case resonated in my head for awhile after we discussed it in class. The image of the Reverend was messed with in the advertisement and because of the absurdity of the image and factual claims, the case was closed. The description at the bottom of the ad that stated that the information was fictional was not large enough for the average person to read it and so that tells me the company sponsoring the ad knew exactly what they were doing.
This case is probably just one of those ones that I love to hate. I don't like that the Reverend didn't get any sort of stipend for his reputation, but the case was interesting if nothing else!
Post a Comment