Tatum v. Dallas Morning News, Inc. is a case the Supreme Court of Texas will decide this term, involving two parents who were accused by a columnist at the Dallas Morning News of hiding their son’s recent suicide and perpetuating the stigma associated with suicide. The parents brought several causes of action against the newspaper. On appeal, the parents stressed the statement was false, damaged their reputation, and that the columnist acted with actual malice by failing to properly investigate before publishing the article. While the actual malice standard is difficult for plaintiffs to meet, the Dallas Court of Appeals found the Tatums presented at least a genuine issue of material fact on the question.
This Note will address why the Supreme
…show more content…
Court of Texas should hold in favor of the Tatums on this issue. Part II will discuss the development of different elements that make up a defamation claim. Part III analyzes Tatum, while Part IV will conclude by explaining why the Supreme Court of Texas should affirm the 5th Court of Appeals’ decision in favor of the Tatums. Defamation can be found in the form of slander or libel.
Specifically, libel is defamation that is expressed in written or other graphic form. The Supreme Court of Texas held in Neely v. Wilson that in order for private individuals in Texas to recover damages, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant published a statement, (2) the statement was defamatory concerning the plaintiff, and (3) the defendant acted with negligence regarding the statement’s truth. In order for a statement to be defamatory it must injure a person’s reputation, expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or financial injury, or impeach his honesty, integrity, or virtue. However, it is possible for a statement to be false, abusive, or unpleasant without being defamatory. A statement becomes actionable defamation when the statement is of verifiable fact rather than opinion. But a statement simply labeled as an opinion may be actionable if it expressly or implicitly asserts facts that can be objectively …show more content…
verified. Court construe an allegedly defamatory publication as a whole in light of the surrounding circumstances and based on how a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive it. In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., the Supreme Court held a defamation plaintiff must prove the statement is false if the defendant is a media defendant and the statement involves a matter of public concern. In Texas, a defamation plaintiff must also prove the defamatory statement referred to him or her. The statement does not have to specifically refer to the plaintiff by name, however, if it is clear to people who know and are acquainted with the plaintiff that the statement is regarding the plaintiff, then it is reasonably understood that the statement referred to the plaintiff. The substantial truth doctrine permits liability for when a publication correctly conveys the details of a story, but takes the facts out of context and ultimately get the story’s “gist” wrong. The Supreme Court of Texas discussed the substantial truth doctrine in Neely and stated a defamatory statement is not actionable if it is either true or substantially true. A publication is substantially true when the allegedly defamatory statement taken as a whole is not more damaging to the plaintiff’s reputation than a truthful statement would have been. The court stated the amount of damage is judged through the eyes of a reasonable person’s perception of the publication. Courts also determine substantial truth by assessing the publication’s “gist” by examining how an ordinary person would perceive it. A false gist is substantially true and nonactionable if the damage done to the plaintiff’s reputation is equal to or less than how damaging the truthful publication would have been. Statements that are not verifiable as false cannot form the basis of a defamation claim.
In adopting the “verifiable as fact” test in Bentley and Neely, the Texas Supreme Court relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. The case involved an individual suing another for publishing an article that accused him of perjury. The Court concluded a multi-factor test was unnecessary to determining whether a statement was an actionable opinion. Instead, the Court focused the analysis on the statement’s verifiability and the entire context in which it was made. Ultimately, the Court held the defendant’s statement was “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.
In Bentley, the Supreme Court of Texas similarly found repeated statements that a particular judge was “corrupt” were actionable statements of fact. The Court applied the Milkovich analysis and considered the accusations in context. The defendant in that case repeatedly stated his accusations were based on objective, provable facts and evidence that he had
seen. Private individuals who sue a media defendant must prove negligence to recover defamation damages. In this context, negligence has two prongs: (1) the publisher knew or should have known that the defamatory statement was false, and (2) the factual misstatement’s content was such that it would warn a reasonable prudent editor or broadcaster of its defamation potential. If a defamatory statement about a private figure involves a matter of public concern, however, and the defendant is a media defendant, the private figure must prove actual malice to recover punitive damages. Courts employ a three-part test to assess whether a plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure: (1) the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution, (2) the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy, and (3) the alleged defamation must be germane to the plaintiff’s participation in the controversy.
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
In passing the legislation known as Measure 16 in the state of Oregon, were there deceptions involved? Did the media play along with proponents of assisted suicide, denying media coverage to opposing viewpoints? What did proponents do immediately after passage of Measure 16? This paper will seek to satisfy these questions and others.
Sue Grafton once stated: “Except for cases that clearly involve a homicidal maniac, the police like to believe murders are committed by those we know and love, and most of the time they're right.” This is clearly the thought the Boulder Colorado police conceived in the case of little beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey. As many have observed from the onslaught of media coverage, the day after Christmas 1996, six year old Jon Benet Ramsey was found buried under a white blanket, bound, beaten, and strangled to death in the wine cellar of their Boulder home. With such a strikingly rare and glamorous story of a six year old beauty queen dead, who was a part of a “perfect American upper-middle class family”, combined with a lack of a lead and ever mounting suspicion piling up against the parents it was no surprise to find that it was fuel to the media and soon stories sold and became a matter of competition between the press. So, like wildfire, this heart-breaking story spread, stretching across the nation, shattering the souls of the world. News broadcasts, magazine and newspaper articles, and television specials all shaped and molded peoples perceptions of this beautiful child’s murder, especially her parents, John and Pasty Ramsey’s involvement or lack there of. The police and FBI’s merciless quest to connect Jon Benet’s murder to her parents, seemed to cause the them to overlook important evidence, or at the very least dismiss suspicious findings that would otherwise send red flags to investigators. There are many contributors as to why this case remains unsolved including lack of investigative expertise, failure to protect valuable evidence, and focusing too much on the parents as suspects but, ultimately, the over involvement of...
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
Barrington, Mary Rose. "The Right to Suicide." Problems of Death. Ed. Bender, David L. Anoka: Greenhaven, 1974. 114-119.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
From the Ferguson, Missouri case of an officer “wrongfully” protecting himself to the Texas DWI case involving the father murdering the murderer of his sons, the media helps play a larger role on the scale to emphasize more attraction to the topic of the moment. With the increasing complexity and reach of the law, to nullify is to be a useful tool in a democratic society. However, a verdict should be based on the law as decided by the whole people, not the few who make up the jury of a particular case. Although judges and legal scholars take a variety of positions of the subject of jury nullification, the validity of the practice is said to follow logically from several aspects of our judicial system. In the general, judges are unwilling in most states to even inform juries the option of
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
Radelet, Michael L., Hugo A. Bedau, and Constance E. Putnam. "In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases." Google Books. UPNE, 26 May 1994. Web. 02 Dec. 2011. .
The Defamation Act 2013 was passed to help regulation on defamation to deliver more effective protection for freedom of speech, while at the same time ensuring that people who have been defamed are able to protect their reputation. It is often difficult to know which personal remarks are proper and which run afoul of defamation law. Defamation is a broad word that covers every publication that damages someone's character. The basic essentials of a cause of act for defamation are: A untruthful and offensive statement regarding another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; If the offensive situation is of public concern, fault amounting at least to carelessness on the share of the publisher; and Injury to the plaintiff. Slander and libel are both kinds of defamation, which refers to statements that hurt another person's name. While there are connections, each concentrate on different forms of defamation approaches. Normally, this will include not only the use of certain words to harm a reputation, but also activities such as finger signals or facial expressions in order to emphasize the fabrication that is being dispersed. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." Libel deals with printed matter, TV and radio broadcasts, movies and videotapes, social media sites, even blogs, emails, even drawings on a wall. An unpleasant statement is verbal; the statement is "slander." Slander explains defamation that you can overhear, not see. It is commonly spoken statements that distort someone's reputation. The government can't jail someone for making a defamatory statement since it does not break the law. Instead, defamation is considered to be an infringement of a person's ...
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
During the history defamation has developed in two ways; slander and libel. The law leading slander focused on oral statements and libel on written ones. By the 1500 English printers had to be licensed and had to be linked to the government as by that time it was believed that written word had possibility to give a risk to political strength. However when the times passed the law progressed and these days freedom of expression is a foundation of democratic rights and freedoms therefore freedom of speech is necessary in making possible democracy to work and community involvement in decision-making.
...sults show that in most cases, innocent people are harmed and convicted for no truthful reason at all.