Ch. 14 Quiz #9

Libel

"Libel is essentially a false and defamatory attack in written form on a person's reputation or character. Broadcast defamation is libel because there is usually a written script. Oral or spoken defamation is slander," according to Donald Gillmor and his co-authors in Mass Communication Law: Cases and Comment. The "script" is not limited to a news story, the authors explain; it can take the form of headlines, photos, cartoons, film, tape, records, signs, bumper stickers and advertisements. Several libel suits have also resulted from messages that people posted to online discussion groups. If the defamatory statements are published — whether online or in print — they can still be considered libelous. Truth is a defense in libel suits. Anyone can sue or threaten to sue for libel, claiming injury to his reputation. The real concern is whether the person has grounds enough to win. The key factors to consider are whether you published untrue information that hurt the reputation of an identifiable person and whether you were either negligent or reckless in failing to check the information: -Are you publishing something that may not be truthful? -Are you carelessly publishing something that is inaccurate? -Are you publishing something accusatory that you haven't checked out? -Are you publishing something that clearly identifies a person and harms that person's reputation? If your answer is yes to any of those questions, you could be in trouble for libel.

Coaching Tips

-Check your story for accuracy. -Seek documents to substantiate sources' claims. -Seek sources with alternate points of view. -Role-play: If you were the source or the source's attorney, what would you find libelous or objectionable in the story? -Check for the latest charges or disposition in police and court cases. -Don't copy information from a website without attribution or permission. -Don't use Twitter, Facebook or other social media photos, text or video without permission. -Don't use online information or social media you can't verify, especially if it includes accusations about a person.

Times v. Sullivan

A Supreme Court landmark libel case in 1964 that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice," knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

"pervasive" public figure

A "pervasive" public figure is a person who has gained prominence in society or great power and influence. Well-known entertainers and athletes and people who voluntarily seek public attention are in this category.

"vortex," or "limited," public figure

A "vortex," or "limited," public figure is a person who has voluntarily thrust himself into a public controversy to influence the outcome. The Supreme Court has stated that people in this category are not public figures for all aspects of their lives, but only for the aspects that relate to their role in a particular public controversy. A key point is the "voluntary" concept. An individual does not automatically become a public figure if he is thrust into a newsworthy situation; the involvement in the controversy must be the person's choice. Access to the media is another factor in determining whether someone is a public figure. The person must have enough regular and continuing access to the media to counter criticism and expose falsehoods.

Neutral Reportage

A First Amendment protection of the news media to write accusations about a public official or public figure in a public controversy as long as the reporter states them accurately and neutrally; recognized only in 10 states. Another type of privilege, called "neutral reportage," has been recognized in about 10 states. It gives the news media First Amendment protection in writing accusations about a public official or public figure in a public controversy as long as the reporter states them accurately and neutrally. If one official or person considered responsible and newsworthy accuses another public figure of wrongdoing, you may print the information as long as you get reactions of the accused or other participants. Under neutral reportage you aren't responsible for determining whether the accusations are true. However, many states don't extend this type of privilege to the media, so it's always safer to beware of printing unsubstantiated accusations. The best defense for a reporter is the "truth" defense, proving that what you wrote is true. What you can do and what you should do may differ. You may have the right to print statements from court records or meetings, but if you think they could be untrue or unfair, should you print them? Those are the kinds of ethical decisions journalists must make. Most editors advise this: When in doubt, leave it out.

false light

A published story or picture that gives the wrong impression and is embarrassing to the person if it was published with actual malice, knowledge that the information was not true. The courts have acknowledged four grounds for invasion of privacy lawsuits: intrusion, public disclosure of private and embarrassing facts, false light, and misappropriation of a person's name or image without permission.

The Importance of Accuracy

Accuracy is paramount for a good journalist. Every mistake you make jeopardizes the organization's credibility with readers and viewers. Because of that credibility factor, newspapers throughout the country print corrections every day, many for the incorrect spelling of names. That's another reason why you should always double-check the names in your stories. Accuracy in the media is also affected by the growing use of social media networks for reporting. Sources are not always reliable or identified, especially in tweets, and the rush to publish in this highly competitive news world can lead to inaccurate information. With press credibility at an all-time low, it is crucial to verify your sources when you use Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites for reporting.

intellectual property rights for online materials

Although many unresolved issues remain about intellectual property rights for online materials, additional laws to protect software and online materials were enacted in the late 1990s. -The No Electronic Theft Act, signed into law in 1997, provides penalties of up to five years in jail and fines of up to $250,000 for copying software or online materials, even if you don't make a profit. -The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 provides a broad range of penalties, including criminal offenses from $500,000 to $1 million and up to 10 years imprisonment, for copying online materials for commercial advantage or private financial gain.

Hutchinson v. Proxmire

Consider the case of Hutchinson v. Proxmire. In 1975, when the late Sen. William Proxmire issued his annual "Golden Fleece" awards, which satirized some government-funded research projects as wasteful, he issued a press release targeting a researcher who was using monkeys to study stress. The scientist, Ronald Hutchinson, sued Proxmire for damaging his reputation and subjecting him to public ridicule by falsely claiming Hutchinson's research was wasteful. Key to the case was determining whether Hutchinson was a public figure. Proxmire claimed the scientist was a public figure because he had received federal grants and had access to the media when they contacted him about receiving the Golden Fleece award. A federal district court agreed with Proxmire and dismissed the suit. But Hutchinson appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hutchinson was not a public figure because he was not willingly involved in a public controversy until Proxmire caused it. The court said Hutchinson did not automatically become a public figure by being thrust into a newsworthy situation. Also, the court determined that Hutchinson did not have regular and continuing access to the media. He was sought out by reporters only to respond to Proxmire's criticism. Hutchinson ultimately received $10,000 from Proxmire. The third type of public figure, "involuntary," is someone who does nothing voluntary to garner attention or to get involved in a public issue but finds himself in the middle of a public controversy anyway. Courts have found that this category rarely fits an individual in a libel suit.

verdict

Decision by a jury about guilt or innocence.

Intrusion into a Person's Solitude

Eavesdropping, harassing someone and trespassing on private property can be considered intrusion. So can going onto private property and using a telephoto lens, listening behind doors and using any device to enhance what the unaided eye can see or the unaided ear can hear. In other words, a journalist who uses subterfuge to obtain and publish confidential material could be risking a suit for invasion of privacy. The intrusion can be either physical or mental.

False light

False light is related to defamation, but the story or picture does not have to defame a person to be considered false light. It does have to portray the person inaccurately. Truth is a defense in these cases. Generally, the plaintiff has to prove that the media showed actual malice by knowingly publishing false information.

Public Officials

For purposes of libel law, who is a public official? Elected officials and candidates for office are definitely considered public officials. Appointed officials may or may not be. Here are the criteria: Do they have authority to set policy in the government, and are they under enough public scrutiny to have easy access to the media? The Supreme Court defined public officials this way in Rosenblatt v. Baer, a case about the status of appointed officials: "It is clear, therefore, that the "public official" designation applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of government affairs." Is a police officer a public official? Courts in Pennsylvania are split on that decision, but most courts have ruled that law enforcement officers are public officials because they have the power to make arrests, a form of control in government. However, teachers, professors and other employees in a public education system are not usually defined as public officials because they are carrying out policies set by other officials of the school district or university. But if they achieve fame or notoriety, they may become public figures.

Fair Use

How much information can you copy without infringing on a copyright? Of all the copyright laws, fair use is the murkiest. "The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission," according to the U.S. Copyright Office.

Publicity that Puts a Person in a False Light

If a published story or picture gives the wrong impression and is embarrassing to the person, the possibility exists that the court will consider a "false light" verdict. For example, in one case a television station doing a story about teenage pregnancy took pictures of a young woman walking down the street. The television station did not say she was pregnant, nor did the station identify her. However, she claimed the picture put her in a false light — indicating that she was a pregnant teenager — and she won her lawsuit against the station.

Sites with Public Domain

If the site says the information is in the public domain, that means the work is publicly available without copyright restrictions. Most U.S. government websites and publications are in the public domain. Other works that were published in the U.S. before 1923 also qualify because their copyright expired; and those published before 1964, if the copyrights were not renewed.

sued for libel

If you don't name the person against whom the accusation is made, you still can be sued for libel. A person who can claim he was identified — either by enough information to describe the person physically or by position — can then sue. Nor does attribution save you. Say that a candidate for mayor tells you his opponent is a crook. You print the statement and attribute it to the candidate. The opponent could sue you and your organization. Just because you named the source of the statement, you cannot avoid responsibility for it. And if it isn't true and you haven't documented it as true, you could be considered guilty of reckless disregard for the truth. If you are going to print or broadcast any accusations that could be defamatory, you should always check with the person being accused and ask for a response. Cross-checking may not save you from libel, but it at least gives you a chance to prove you were not reckless. There are times when you can publish accusatory or damaging information, especially when you are writing about crime. You have certain privileges as a member of the press, and so do some of the officials who deal with you.

Copyright

If you take pictures or documents from a website that does not contain a copyright notice, are you violating copyright laws? Absolutely. The 1976 U.S. Copyright Act protects everything that you or others write the minute the information is offered in "a fixed form," which includes online or print information. The law was amended later to make a copyright notice optional on all works published on or after 1989. Prior to that date a notice was required to receive copyright protection. It's always safe to include the copyright symbol and notice on your website or material, even if it isn't mandatory.

Examples of Qualified Privilege

If, during a public meeting, a city council member calls another member a crook, you may print the accusation. If the same city official makes the same comment to you during a telephone interview or after the meeting, you can't print it without risking libel. The key is that the defamatory statement must be made in an official capacity during an official proceeding. Or you may use, with attribution, something stated in court records. But you must make it clear that the accusations were made by other people in records or meetings and are not proven fact. Suppose that a police officer tells you something about a suspect. You may print this information if the officer is acting in an official capacity and if the information is documented in a public record, such as a police report or court files. However, you still should be careful about how you word accusations in crime stories. The police officer may say the man stabbed his wife, but you may not say the same thing without attribution. If the information is not stated in a public record, such as a police report or court record, it can be libelous. Generally, statements made outside of the court by police are not privileged, but some states may extend privilege to these comments. Never call anyone a murderer unless the person has been convicted of murder in court. Suppose that a man has been murdered and you go to the neighborhood for reaction. A neighbor says the man's wife killed him. The neighbor isn't an official acting in an official capacity, and the wife hasn't been convicted. The neighbor's comments could be libelous, and you could be sued for printing them. Don't call a suspect a "robber" or use any other accusatory term before the person is convicted. Use terms such as "the suspect," "the man accused of murder," or "the woman charged with the robbery."

Cox Broadcasting Co. v. Cohn

In 1975 the Supreme Court ruled in Cox Broadcasting Co. v. Cohn that a television station in Atlanta was within its First Amendment rights to publish the name of a rape victim even though state law prohibited doing so. The victim's family had sued for invasion of privacy, claiming a private fact had been disclosed. The family had won, but Cox appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court said the news media had the right to report matters on the public record. Information not on the public record is more susceptible to lawsuits. The courts have ruled that the media may be invading privacy if the private facts in question would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person and would not be of legitimate public concern. Community standards of what is "offensive" may vary from one place to another. That's why these are difficult cases for courts to decide.

Reno v. ACLU

In 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down portions of the act that censored online material. In the ruling, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the CDA's "use of undefined terms 'indecent and patently offensive' raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech." One area that was not struck down was a little section that has become a big issue for Internet providers, bloggers and other people who post messages on any Internet or social networking sites. Section 230 of the act says, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." As mentioned at the start of this chapter, that means that if someone posts a libelous message to your website, you are not responsible for the content of it unless you created part of it. Courts have held that this part of the act protects you even if you edit or delete the offensive material. If you are only providing the website or service, you're safe, but if you contribute to the content, you could be held responsible.

judicial discretion

In 2013 a federal shield law, The Free Flow of Information Act, was proposed in Congress. The latest version of the bill contained a provision of "judicial discretion," which gives a judge the power to extend the shield law's provisions to any person "if the judge determines that such protections would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities under the specific circumstances of the case."

Dietemann v. Time Inc.

In Dietemann v. Time Inc., two Life magazine reporters were sued for going undercover as husband and wife to do a story on a plumber, A.S. Dietemann. The plumber was believed to be practicing medicine with herbs. The so-called healer told the female reporter she had cancer and prescribed an herbal cure. The female reporter taped Dietemann's comments, and her partner took pictures with a concealed camera. Even though the plumber later pleaded no contest to a charge of practicing medicine without a license, he sued the magazine company for invasion of privacy. A California court awarded him $1,000. An appeals court upheld the award and said that the undercover methods, used without Dietemann's consent, were an invasion of his privacy. "The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another's home or office," the court opinion said. Unlike libel suits, publication isn't required for someone to claim invasion of privacy in this type of case. Truth isn't a defense either.

Anonymous Sources

In addition to verifying sources, it is also important to identify them. However, when doing investigative reporting or getting confidential sources, particularly in government, sources often refuse to divulge information unless they receive a promise of anonymity. Most news organizations prefer to avoid that promise, but reporters still depend on these anonymous sources.

private figure

In libel cases, a private individual needs to show only that the material was published with carelessness or negligence instead of proving actual malice. The difference between being a public or private figure is crucial because the standards for proving libel can differ. Many states have made it easier for private persons to prove libel than for public figures. The Supreme Court has left it up to the states to determine their own standards of liability for private figures.

defamation

Injury to the reputation of someone.

Public Domain

Intellectual property rights that are available to the public without copyright restrictions.

liability

Legal responsibility.

The nature of communication

More cases continue to come before the courts regarding peer-to-peer file sharing of music. Rulings are pending on other cases involving companies that furnish the software for file sharing, and these issues are likely to continue. Whether it is material for a blog, a profile in a social networking site or other online matter, most sites that host such content specify terms about posting pornography, defamatory messages or other unacceptable material that could be libelous. The nature of communication is changing rapidly, and so are the legal decisions, but the concepts of accuracy and fairness are timeless.

Federal Shield Law

Most states have laws that protect reporters from revealing their sources if a case comes to court where testimony from the source is needed. But there is no federal law offering such protection, even though attempts to pass one have been proposed for many years. In several instances reporters who have refused to reveal their sources in federal cases have been sentenced to jail. In 2013 a federal shield law, The Free Flow of Information Act, was proposed in Congress. The latest version of the bill contained a provision of "judicial discretion," which gives a judge the power to extend the shield law's provisions to any person "if the judge determines that such protections would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities under the specific circumstances of the case." Earlier versions of this bill disputed the definitions of a journalist, but the most recent version says the law could apply to a "covered journalist," meaning a person who "disseminates news or information" not yet invented. This broader interpretation of a journalist would apply to citizen journalists, freelancers and possibly bloggers and social media reporters, depending on the judicial discretion application. The bill proposed in the Senate imposes these conditions: Journalists would only be granted protection from revealing sources in federal cases if alternative sources have been exhausted; if testimony is critical to the investigation; if the source's identity is necessary to prevent terrorism or harm to national security and if the disclosure outweighs the public interest in the news dissemination. The bill still must pass in Congress and be signed into law by the president before it can become law. State laws that protect journalists from revealing sources vary. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press offers a website listing those laws at www.rcfp.org/reporters-privilege.

Creative Commons

One exception is Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that offers copyright licenses allowing people to share their materials. The licenses specify whether the information may be reproduced for noncommercial or commercial use and what type of attribution is needed. To determine whether you are free to use information especially from online sources, check the webpage for a copyright notice or other disclaimers and terms of service.

Zeran v. America Online

Online providers can thank Kenneth Zeran for that protection. He was just at home in Seattle, running his publishing business from his house in April 1995, when his phone began ringing every two minutes with callers issuing death threats. The calls began just six days after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City where 168 people died. An anonymous person had posted Zeran's telephone number on an America Online message board, telling readers to call him because he was selling T-shirts, key chains and other memorabilia about the bombing, with such offensive slogans as "Visit Oklahoma ... It's a BLAST!!!" Oddly enough, Zeran wasn't even a member of AOL, and the person who posted the message had a trial membership and was never identified because AOL didn't keep records of nonsubscribers. To make matters worse, an announcer for a classic rock radio station in Oklahoma City read the message on air and encouraged listeners to call Zeran and tell him how they felt about what he was doing. Zeran sued the radio station on grounds of defamation, false light, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the court ruled in favor of the radio station on all counts. The court ruled that the only charge applicable to broadcast was slander, and there was insufficient evidence to establish injury to Zeran's reputation or that his emotional stress was "severe" enough to prevent him from conducting his daily affairs. More significant was his suit against AOL on charges that the service was responsible for the defamatory messages and was unreasonably slow in removing them. This was the first libel case against an online service provider to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Zeran's case was initially dismissed in 1997 by a U.S. District Court, which ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protected online service providers from liability for subscribers' material. In 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that decision. So AOL was not at fault, and Zeran got nothing for his troubles.

public figures

People may be considered public figures if their achievements or notoriety place them in the public eye or if they seek attention by voluntarily thrusting themselves into a public controversy.

plaintiff

Person who sues in a civil case.

Privilege

Privilege — in a legal sense — comes in two forms: absolute and qualified.

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Publishing facts such as information about a person's sex life or medical history that the public considers offensive could be considered invasion of privacy, even if they are true. But if the facts are taken from the public record, such as court documents, they will probably be considered fair to publish.

actual malice

Publishing something knowing it was false or carelessly publishing information without checking whether it was true or false.

Test your knowledge of these legal issues: 1. You are the online editor of your campus newspaper. A person using a pseudonym has posted a message on your website that could be libelous. If you don't remove the posting, the paper will be liable for the information in the message if a lawsuit is filed. True or false? 2. You have visited a website that has a graphic you want to use in your campus newspaper or your radio station's website. The site does not contain any copyright notice, so you can use the graphic without permission. True or false? 3. Any columns labeled "opinion" or editorials published in your newspaper cannot be considered libelous regardless of the information they contain. True or false? 4. You are posting a video on YouTube. If you use just a portion of a popular song in your video, you will not be violating copyright laws. True or false?

Question 1: False The paper is not liable for messages posted by a third party. The federal Communications Decency Act grants immunity to website operators and Internet providers for messages posted by a third party. But if you create part of the message by editing it, you could be considered a "content provider," and you might be liable in a lawsuit. In addition, because the Web is a global medium, you could be liable in other countries. It is probably a good idea to check the postings and delete ones that you think are offensive or potentially libelous. Question 2: False All material on the Internet is copyrighted as soon as it is created. It does not need to have a copyright notice to be protected by U.S. copyright laws. However, some images may be available without permission if they are from most U.S. government sites or from websites that say permission is granted for specific use. In many cases the site may grant permission to use images on personal pages, but not for commercial use. Question 3: False You may express opinions without impunity, but if you publish an allegation that is false and damaging to a person's reputation, you can be sued for libel no matter where it is published in a newspaper, on a website or in a broadcast medium. You can criticize someone as a bad performer without being libelous, but if you falsely accuse the performer of being a drug addict, that would be libelous. Question 4: False You are violating copyright by using all or a portion of a song or video that you did not create yourself. The YouTube site specifically states: "If you're not sure if something will violate someone's copyright, the safest thing to do is to create something completely original, with images and audio you've created.... If you've recorded something from a DVD, videotaped your TV screen, or downloaded a video online, don't post it unless you have permission."

Showing Copy to Sources

Should you show your story to sources or read it to them before you publish it? Many of your sources will ask you to do that. And many editors will say you shouldn't. They claim the risks are too great that sources will recant what they have told you or ask you to delete any information that puts them in a bad light. If you don't show the entire story to your source, it is considered acceptable — even wise — to ask a source about any technical information you may not fully understand. You can read what you have written and ask the source to check its accuracy.

Fair Comment and Criticism

Suppose you are writing a review of a play, concert or book, and your review is very negative. Can you be sued? Yes. You can always be sued. But you are protected under the right of fair comment. Writers of editorials, analysis stories, reviews and other criticism may express opinions, but they may not state inaccurate facts. A factual error can be grounds for libel; an opinion is protected. To qualify as fair comment, a comment must generally be on a matter of public interest; it must be based on facts known or believed to be true; and it may not be malicious or made with reckless disregard for the truth. In this case also, truth is considered a good defense.

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

The Communications Decency Act originally contained provisions to protect children from obscene and indecent Internet material, but those parts were struck down by the Supreme Court as violations of the First Amendment's right to free speech. However, these other efforts succeeded: -COPPA, which took effect in 2000 and was revised in 2013, makes it a federal crime — with penalties of $16,000 per violation — to collect information from children under 13 and use it for commercial purposes that could be considered harmful to minors. The revised rule widens the definition of children's personal information to include identifiers such as cookies that track children's activity online, geolocation, videos, photos and audio recordings. It requires operators of websites or online services directed to children under 13 to give notice to parents and get their consent before collecting, using or disclosing any personal information they collect from children. -The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), passed in 2000, also attempts to protect children by requiring public schools and libraries that receive federal funds to install software that would block online material considered "harmful to minors," basically pornography and obscenity. The law was challenged as unconstitutional by the American Library Association, but in 2003 the Supreme Court upheld it. In addition, more than 21 states have enacted laws to require Internet filtering software in public schools or libraries to limit children's access to sexually explicit online information. These types of legal issues are certain to continue as the government attempts to regulate the Internet.

Online Legal Issues

The Internet is spawning many new legal issues and laws regarding free speech vs. pornography, libel, copyright and privacy.

Qualified Privilege

The media may print defamatory statements made by people who are absolutely privileged as long as the information is from a public proceeding or public record. As a member of the media, you have "qualified privilege." You may print defamatory statements made by people who are absolutely privileged as long as you are being fair and accurate, and the information is from a public proceeding or public record. But if your report contains errors, you could lose that qualified protection.

Time Inc. v. Hill

The case often cited here is Time Inc. v. Hill, because it was the first false-light case to reach the Supreme Court. James Hill, his wife and five children were held hostage in their suburban Philadelphia home by three escaped convicts in 1952. After the incident, the Hills moved to Connecticut. A few years later, Life magazine was planning to publish a review of a play partially based on the incident. The magazine took the cast of the play to the Hills' old home and photographed the actors in some scenes from the play. James Hill sued, saying the pictures in Life gave readers the impression that the scenes portrayed the family's real experiences. Hill initially won his suit. But it eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that Hill would have to prove actual malice on the part of Life magazine. The court sent the case back for retrial to a lower court, but Hill dropped the suit.

Gertz v. Welch

The court made this ruling in a 1974 case, Gertz v. Welch. Elmer Gertz was a Chicago lawyer who claimed he had been libeled when a John Birch Society magazine, American Opinion, published an article labeling him a Communist. He sued the publisher, Robert Welch. Even though Gertz was a prominent lawyer, the Supreme Court ruled that he was a private person under the circumstances of this case. The court also declared that because private people don't have the same access to the media to defend themselves as public officials, they shouldn't be held to the same strict standards in proving libel. In Gertz v. Welch, the court decided that a private individual needs to show only that the material was published with carelessness or negligence instead of proving actual malice, which means publishing with knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity. But all libel plaintiffs, public and private, have to prove the material is false and damaging to their reputation. Even though the Supreme Court left it up to states to determine their own libel standards in cases involving private figures, the Gertz case paved the way for allowing private people to abide by less rigid standards than public officials and figures. Many states have followed the "simple negligence" standard in the Gertz case. Others require private individuals to abide by the same "actual malice" standard as public individuals. "Negligence" in this context means you failed to exercise reasonable care in doing your job as a journalist. That type of care might include talking to all sides of a controversial issue, using relevant documents, taking accurate notes and checking your information for accuracy before publishing it.

Invasion of Privacy

The courts have acknowledged four grounds for invasion of privacy: intrusion, public disclosure of private and embarrassing facts, false light, and misappropriation of a person's name or image without permission. Issues of privacy involve ethical decisions, not matters of accuracy. However, with the proliferation of invasion of privacy lawsuits, a journalist should understand the legal issues. Privacy is not a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In privacy cases, damage is usually considered the mental anguish that results from wrongfully revealing to the public some part of the plaintiff's life. Truth may not be enough of a defense in privacy cases.

The fair use doctrine of U.S. Copyright laws

The fair use doctrine of U.S. Copyright laws says the ruling depends on whether the material you are copying is for commercial or nonprofit educational purposes, the amount of material taken and whether the material copied will affect the value of the copyrighted work. For example, if you copied an entire chapter of this book without permission, the publisher would probably not consider that "fair use" because it would affect the sale of the book. If you take an audio or video of a commercially sold item and post it on your website, that would also fail to qualify as fair use. Photos, screenshots and other material from websites are also copyrighted, so if you put them on your website, you should either get permission or check to make sure that the creator of that material has posted a notice that you may use the material without separate copyright permission.

Communications Decency Act

The first major test of free speech on the Internet to reach the U.S. Supreme Court was the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, a federal law that restricted distribution of indecent material on the Internet to people under age 18. The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law, which was ruled unconstitutional by a federal three-judge panel in Philadelphia, but the government appealed the ruling in Reno v. ACLU.

Corrections

The most common cause of lawsuits is carelessness. Most news media don't publish material they know or suspect is false. Although newspapers and broadcast media get sued by people targeted in major investigative projects, the majority of libel suits stem from much less important stories. Incorrect captions, defamatory headlines, an inaccuracy in a police story or a feature can result in a libel suit. Printed corrections or oral retractions on radio or television don't prevent libel suits. They may assuage an angered source enough to forestall a lawsuit, or they may be evidence of the news organization's good faith, but corrections do not undo the harm of inaccurate published material. It's up to a jury to decide whether you were negligent, careless or reckless in your disregard for the truth.

Person of Interest

The name of a suspect released before actual charges are filed; used when police believe the suspect will soon be charged with the crime. In recent years police have been using another term, "person of interest," to describe someone who is being investigated in a crime but has not been arrested or charged with anything. Although the term appears to be a synonym for "suspect," it does not have any legal definition and can implicate people who are just being questioned. The term has become known as "the Richard Jewell rule," because it was used in reference to Richard Jewell, the man who was initially accused of being responsible for the 1996 Olympic Park bombing incident, but was never charged. He was cleared of any wrongdoing, but when he died in 2007, news stories still associated him with the wrongful accusations in the bombing incident. The lesson from that is to be careful how you characterize people in criminal investigations and to think before you publish names of people who have not been officially charged with crimes.

Absolute Privilege

The prerogative of public officials, including law enforcement officials, to make statements in the course of their official duties without fear of being sued for libel. This means that public officials, including law enforcement officials, can make statements in the course of their official duties without fear of being sued for libel. This form of privilege extends to court proceedings, legislative proceedings, public and official meetings, and contents of public records. For example, if Senator Proxmire had announced his Golden Fleece awards on the floor of the Senate instead of in a news release, he would have had absolute privilege and could not have been sued by Hutchinson, the researcher who claimed he was libeled.

Use of a Person's Name or Photo without Permission

This doctrine applies when the picture is used for commercial purposes, such as advertising or promotion. For example, use of an athlete's photograph to promote a product without his consent could be grounds for a lawsuit. The easiest way to avoid this kind of lawsuit is to have the person sign a consent form. Television personality Vanna White sued Samsung Electronics when an advertisement the firm used featured a robot that resembled White as she appeared on the game show "Wheel of Fortune." White claimed her image was appropriated without her permission, and a court agreed.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Those standards were the ones the U.S. Supreme Court applied in 1964 in a landmark libel case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and the standards have been applied since then to public officials. The New York Times case stemmed from an advertisement the newspaper accepted in 1960 from a group of people in the civil rights movement. The group was trying to raise money for the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King. The ad claimed that King had been arrested seven times and that his home had been bombed. It also claimed that black students who had staged a nonviolent civil rights demonstration at Alabama State University had been the target of police brutality. The advertisement accused the police department in Montgomery, Alabama, of being armed with shotguns and using tear gas to subdue students. Even though the police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, had not been named in the advertisement, he sued for libel. He contended that the mention of "police" in the ad referred to him as the Montgomery police commissioner and that the ad contained factual errors that damaged his reputation. He claimed that the police did not ring the college campus or padlock the college dining hall, as the ad had claimed. Furthermore, Dr. King had been arrested four times, not seven, and three of the four arrests had occurred before Sullivan was commissioner. Sullivan won in the lower courts and the Alabama Supreme Court. But the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision in its landmark ruling about "actual malice." Malice, in this context, does not mean ill will or intent to harm someone; it means that you published something knowing it was false or carelessly published information without checking whether it was true or false. The court placed the burden of proving libel on the plaintiff, the person who is suing. The justices made this a constitutional issue, applying the First Amendment right of a free press to publish matters of public concern. The Times v. Sullivan ruling applied only to people who are public officials. The application was later broadened to include "public figures."

Public Figures

Who is a public figure, and why is the distinction between public officials and public figures important? People may be considered public figures if their achievements or notoriety places them in the public eye or if they seek attention by voluntarily thrusting themselves into a public controversy. But if they are brought into the public spotlight involuntarily, they may not be public figures. A court will usually determine whether the person qualifies as a public figure. Like public officials, public figures also bear the burden of proving that the information in contention was libelous. The person or organization being sued does not have to disprove libel. The courts identify three types of public figures: pervasive, vortex and involuntary.

covered journalist

meaning a person who "disseminates news or information" not yet invented. This broader interpretation of a journalist would apply to citizen journalists, freelancers and possibly bloggers and social media reporters, depending on the judicial discretion application.

alleged

meaning that the accusation is a charge without proof, you are on dangerous ground. This word, although widely used by reporters in police cases, does not save you from libel. It is better to attribute the information to official sources or records.