Law Midterm 1 Ch 5 and 6 - Study sheet- Dale Herbeck Comm Law Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Study sheet- Dale Herbeck Comm Law Notes...

Description

Braun V. Flynt- Braun worked at an amusement park where she was in a novelty act with Ralph the Swimming Pig, Chic magazine published a caption about teaching pigs to swim along with other weird captions next to the photo of Braun, court said publication of Braun’s photo in the “Chic Thrills” section showed her in false light ! Cantrell V. Forest City Publishing Co.- Silver Bridge that connects OH and WV collapsed in 1967 killing 44 ppl, one victim was Melvin Cantrell, reporter wrote a story about Melvin’s death and its impact on Cantrell family, since mom was not home photographer took photos and talked to kids, article stressed the family’s poverty, the children’s old, ill-fitting clothes, Cantrell won 8-1 ! Carson V. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets- Defendant rented and sold “Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets”, Carson sued, court said right of publicity was developed to protect commercial interest of celebrities and their IDs!

Cox Broadcasting V. Cohn- Court held that the 1st amendment protects fair and accurate accounts of info obtained from public records, Cohn was 17 and assaulted by 6 classmates who kill her, murder charges dropped bc it was unclear if she was killed or alcohol poisoning, misdemeanor to publish names of rape victims, WSBTV got a copy of indictment and published name, Cohn’s father sued !

Gill V. Curtis Publishing Co- sued Harpar’s Bazaar for putting them in faslelight, caption was “the world could not revolve w/out love”- couple lost bc court said it did look like a love photo!

Gill V. Hearst Publishing Co.- Used photo of couple and caption said “Publicized as glamour, desirable, ‘love at first sight’ is a bad risk” - couple won because the caption made it look like they were not in love, just lust ! Lambert V. Dow Chemical- Lambert was injured at work when a grinder exploded, metal went into his thigh, during surgery doctors photographed Lambert’s injuries, w/out Lambert’s permission Dow Chemical used those photos for workplace safety campaign, Lambert won bc Dow did not have permission to use photos ! Neff V. Time- Before Browns V. Steelers game Sports Illustrated photographer took photos of fans and published a photo of inebriated Neff with article title “A Strange Kind of Love” abt love fans feel for sports, Neff lost bc Neff was in a public place and people are allowed to take photos of crowds; you have no expectation of privacy ! Sipple V. Chronicle Publishing Co- Sipple Served in Marines in Vietnam, was honorably discharged, Sipple moved to San Fran and was involved with Milk campaign, Sipple was gay but only friends and not fam knew, in an attempt to assassinate Ford Sipple protected Ford, Chronicle mentioned that Sipple was gay in his article ‘Sipple the Hero’ and same info was

republished, his family found out he was gay through the article, Sipple won 15m in invasion of privacy suit , CA court of appeals sided w/ chronicle, said it was public info bc it helped break stereotypes abt gay men!

Snyder V. Phelps- Snyder was killed in Iraq 2006, Rev Phelps and Westboro church protested at funeral, protestors complied w/ Maryland law in protests, Snyder family sued for emotional distress, what Westboro said was protected bc they were protesting American policy!

Spahn V. Julian Messner- Messner published The Warren Spahn Story, a book written by Milton Shapiro, bio included dramatizations, distorted chronologies, and invented dialogues, court said Messner went too far the other way, held conviction under false light!

Time V. Hill- Sept 11 and 12 1952, Hill family held hostage by 3 convicts, in 1953 Hayes published a novel called ‘Desperate Hours’, fictional account of family named “Hilliard” that was held hostage in their home by 3 convicts, the story in the book is different, the book was made into a play and Life Magazine printed a story about the play under headline “True Crime Inspires Tense Play”, Hill claimed the article gave the false impression that the play was an accurate depiction of the real incident; jury awarded Hill $50,000 in compensatory, Judgement reversed by SC 6-3, defendant did not publish in reckless disregard!

Wilson V. Layne- Cops went into home to arrest teenage boy, took press, press did not publish any photos taken but witnessed confrontation between Wilson’s father and police, at the time there was no precedent for media ride alongs so cops were not prosecuted !

Zacchini V. Scripps-Howard- OH TV station filmed Zacchini doing human cannonball act, Zacchini objected but station showed all 15 seconds of act, Zacchini won bc tv needed to buy rights to show footage bc Zacchini owns the act!

Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition !

Barnes V. Glen theatre!

Burstyn V. Wilson- NYC created a movie licensing scheme, 1950 italian film The Miracle was licensed, public outcry that the film was sacrilegious, distributer challenged its’ revocation, this case extended first am to movies !

Epperson V. Arkansas- Ark. 1928 antievolution law prohibits teaching, Epperson challenged the law bc it was unclear whether it would be illegal to teach the prescribed textbook, Ark law signed w Ark, but SC said Ark law is unconstitutional- they cannot make it a crime to teach a theory just bc it conflicts with the bible !

Erie V. Pap’s AM !

Young V, American Mini Theatres!

FCC V. Pacifica Foundation!

FCC V. Fox TV Stations!

Ginsberg V. New York- local convenience store that sold sandwiches and also porn to little boys, mother sends her son in to buy groceries and porn, mom rats him out to police, court said what he was selling was tame but you cannot sell sexually explicit material to minors !

Ginzburg V. US- Ginzburg was selling things and advertising them as obscene when they weren’t, his ads would make you believe his speech was explicit, charged w/ pandering

Kingsley International Pictures V. Regents- Kingsley made a movie based on novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Chatterley has an affair with a married employee, although there is no explicit sex in the movie, NY licensing board would not approve bc of morals, SC said that the first am. does not just protect opinions shared by all but can also protect thoughts that only some have

Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure V. Massachusetts- court had to distinguish sexual from obscene, the fact that something has sexual content does not make it obscene

Miller V. California - Miller operated mail-order business dealing in sexually explicit materials, Miller mailed circulars to get publicity, unsolicited brochure mailed to CA and mans mother found pamphlet and turned miller in, jury was instructed to follow CA standards, conviction dropped

Mishkin V. New York- Mishkin was arrested for his work, he said his work was not offensive to the “average person” bc the average person wouldn’t read it

New York V. Ferber

Pinkus V. US- Pinkus convicted under Comstock Act for mailing obscene material, SC reversed conviction bc average person excludes minors, there was no indication that children would see this material

Pope V. Illinois- two bookstore clerks convicted for selling obscene books, bookstore argued that they were books of literary value, SC said that if a reasonable person would find the work has value it was ok

Redrup V. New York- Talking about “girlie magazines”, magazines w new photos, court said that nudity was not obscene

Regina V. Hicklin- (1868) A protestant Henry Scott was convicted for writing a pamphlet about priests being creepy to women in confessional, under Hicklin Rule a book could be found obscene if any part was objectionable

Renton V. Playtime Theatres

Roth V. US- immigrated to US, published unauthorized copies of Ulysses and Lady Chatterly and was punished for copyright issues, printed and sold books w/ explicit content, arrested and charged w violating “federal law” on obscenity, different states have different obscenity laws, fed only gets involved if it’s sent over state lines , Roth was mailing copies of American Aphrodite, Roth appealed conviction on 1st am grounds , Court upheld conviction bc obscenity “is not protected”

Sable Communications V. FCC

Stanley V. Georgia- Stanley was a bookie, police got a warrant and searched his house, could not find any bookie proof and were pissed, police found that stanley had a lot of movies and screened them and said we’re going to get you for obscenity, SC said no, Thurgood Marshall said you could do what you wanted in the privacy of your own home

US V. One Book Called “Ulysses”- two publishers were convicted on obscenity charges by NY jury for distributing a serialized version of James Joyce’s Ulysses in 1922, stopped distribution of book, 1933 Random House arranged a test case as they wanted to distribute the book, district court said book was not obscene (beginning of the end of Hicklin)

US V. Williams

Ward V. Illinois- Ward convicted under Il law for selling magazine abt SadoMasochism, under IL law something is obscene if it goes beyond customary limits, Ward appealed conviction by saying IL obscenity law was vague, SC upheld conviction saying Ward should have known his books were beyond the line

False light- speech places someone in a “false light” when it conveys something factually untrue about an individual or when it conveys truthful info that carries a false implication ! To be actionable:! 1. portrayal must be material and substantial ! 2. must reach a substantial audience! Newsworthiness- Newsworthiness of story outweighs the individual’s privacy interest...