Communications 300 Lesson 4
Communications 300 Lesson 4 explores key aspects of media law, focusing on defamation and libel. It assesses understanding of legal concepts like 'a chilling effect', the falsity element in libel suits, and the nature of defamatory statements, enhancing legal literacy in communication.
- 1.
The term "a chilling effect" means that
- A.
The news story a. gives readers the chills
- B.
Threats of lawsuits or other punishments cause people to self-censor their own speech or writing
- C.
Fear of press coverage and public discussion cause government officials and agencies to hide their actions
- D.
Too much press coverage of an issue chills governmental effectiveness
Correct Answer
B. Threats of lawsuits or other punishments cause people to self-censor their own speech or writingExplanation
The term "a chilling effect" refers to the phenomenon where threats of lawsuits or other punishments cause individuals to self-censor their own speech or writing. This means that individuals refrain from expressing their opinions or ideas due to fear of potential consequences. This can have a detrimental impact on free speech and open dialogue in society, as people may withhold their thoughts and ideas out of fear of retaliation.Rate this question:
-
- 2.
Which of the following statements is not correct?
- A.
Defamation is the publication of material that would tend to hold one up to hatred, ridicule, contempt, or spite.
- B.
Libel law protects the reputational interests of individuals.
- C.
Reputational rights are explicitly recognized by the Constitution.
- D.
In addition to Constitutional law, state constitutions and common law play a role in libel law.
Correct Answer
A. Defamation is the publication of material that would tend to hold one up to hatred, ridicule, contempt, or spite.Explanation
Defamation is the publication of false material that would tend to hold one up to hatred, ridicule, contempt, or spite.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
With regard to the falsity element of libel suits, which of the following statements is correct?
- A.
Establishing truth of the statement is primarily part of the defense's case.
- B.
Establishing the falsity of the statement is primarily part of the plaintiff's case
- C.
If a statement is proven to be false, it need not be harmful to the plaintiff's reputation to be actionable.
- D.
Before New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the burden of proof to establish the falsity of a defamatory published statement was on the plaintiff.
Correct Answer
D. Before New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the burden of proof to establish the falsity of a defamatory published statement was on the plaintiff.Explanation
In libel suits, the burden of proof to establish the falsity of a defamatory published statement used to be on the plaintiff before the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case in 1964. This means that the plaintiff had to prove that the statement was false in order to support their case. However, after this landmark case, the burden of proof shifted, and now it is primarily part of the defense's case to establish the truth of the statement. Therefore, the correct statement is that before the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, the burden of proof to establish the falsity of a defamatory statement was on the plaintiff.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
True or False? There are some words that always are defamatory regardless of the context in which they were used.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
This statement is false. The context in which words are used can greatly impact whether they are considered defamatory or not. Words that may be defamatory in one context could be considered harmless or even complimentary in another context. The determination of whether a word is defamatory or not depends on the specific circumstances and the intent behind its use. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that there are some words that are always defamatory regardless of the context.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
With regard to the defamation element of libel suits, which of the following statements is not correct?
- A.
Determining the defamatory nature of a statement hinges on whether the recipients of the statement would interpret the words to be defamatory
- B.
It is enough that the communication would tend to prejudice the plaintiff in the eyes of a substantial and respectable minority of recipients
- C.
It is not enough that the communication would tend to prejudice the plaintiff in the eyes of a very small group of persons
- D.
Determining the defamatory nature of a statement hinges on whether the writers and publishers of the statement thought the words were defamatory.
Correct Answer
D. Determining the defamatory nature of a statement hinges on whether the writers and publishers of the statement thought the words were defamatory.Explanation
The correct answer is "Determining the defamatory nature of a statement hinges on whether the writers and publishers of the statement thought the words were defamatory." This statement is not correct because the defamatory nature of a statement is determined by how the recipients interpret the words, not by the thoughts or intentions of the writers and publishers. The focus is on how the statement would be perceived by the audience, rather than the subjective beliefs of the creators.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
With regard to libel suits, which of the following statements is not correct?
- A.
In order to win a libel action, a plaintiff must prove that the defamation was of and concerning him or her.
- B.
Plaintiffs can be identified by name, by photograph, and by membership in a small group.
- C.
Plaintiffs can be defamed by publications about the activities of their family members
- D.
In general, each person involved in the publication of defamatory material may be sued.
Correct Answer
C. Plaintiffs can be defamed by publications about the activities of their family membersExplanation
Plaintiffs cannot be defamed by publications about the activities of their family members. In libel suits, the plaintiff must prove that the defamation was of and concerning him or her, meaning that the defamatory statement must directly relate to the plaintiff themselves. While plaintiffs can be identified by name, photograph, or membership in a small group, the activities of their family members alone cannot be used to defame them. Each person involved in the publication of defamatory material may be sued, which is a correct statement.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Which of the following statements is true?
- A.
Accurate reporting and quoting of a defamatory statement that another person has said in a non-privileged context is an effective defense in libel law.
- B.
There is no statute b. of limitations in libel law.
- C.
The fault requirement that public officials and public figures are required to prove is negligence
- D.
The actual malice rule originated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).
Correct Answer
D. The actual malice rule originated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).Explanation
The correct answer is that the actual malice rule originated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). This landmark case established that public officials and public figures must prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice" - with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for the truth - in order to succeed in a defamation lawsuit. This ruling significantly raised the bar for defamation claims involving public figures and set an important precedent in libel law.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
True or False? The actual malice rule means that a publication was written or printed with hatred, ill-will or spite.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
The actual malice rule does not mean that a publication was written or printed with hatred, ill-will, or spite. Instead, the actual malice rule is a legal standard used in defamation cases, particularly for public figures. It states that in order to prove defamation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant made a false statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This means that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
The following is the best description of the rationale for the establishment of the actual malice rule:
- A.
Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open.
- B.
Vehement, caustic, and sharp attacks, even on government and public officials, should not be part of public discourse.
- C.
There is no chilling effect on speech caused by penalizing honest mistakes.
- D.
Public officials, in deference to their position and to public trust, should be able to expect the press to treat them with heightened respect and with extra caution in their coverage of public issues
Correct Answer
A. Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open.Explanation
The rationale for the establishment of the actual malice rule is that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open. This means that individuals should be able to freely express their opinions and engage in discussions about matters of public concern without fear of legal consequences. The actual malice rule protects this principle by requiring public officials to prove that a statement made about them was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth in order to successfully bring a defamation lawsuit. This ensures that public officials are not able to use defamation claims to stifle criticism or suppress free speech.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
With regard to libel suits, the following is not true:
- A.
The determination of knowledge of falsity rests on what the libel defendant knew at the time of publication
- B.
Misquotation of a public figure cannot be libelous unless the wording materially changes the meaning of what was really said.
- C.
Knowledge of falsity focuses on what the publisher should have known; reckless disregard focuses on what the publisher knew
- D.
A publisher must be able to demonstrate reasonable belief in the published material.
Correct Answer
C. Knowledge of falsity focuses on what the publisher should have known; reckless disregard focuses on what the publisher knewExplanation
The correct answer is that knowledge of falsity focuses on what the publisher should have known, while reckless disregard focuses on what the publisher knew. This means that in a libel suit, the determination of knowledge of falsity is based on what the publisher should have known at the time of publication, while reckless disregard is based on what the publisher actually knew. The publisher must be able to demonstrate a reasonable belief in the published material to defend against a libel claim.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
True or False? If libel plaintiffs can prove they were identified in false, defamatory publications, and if they can prove the requisite degree of fault, they need not prove actual injury in order to recover damages.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
False. Libel plaintiffs do not need to prove actual injury in order to recover damages. They only need to prove that they were identified in false, defamatory publications and that the defendant was at fault. However, they still need to show some form of harm or damage to their reputation in order to be awarded damages.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
Which of the following is not true in libel suits?
- A.
The jury determines whether a plaintiff is a public official
- B.
Unless private person libel plaintiffs are seeking presumed or punitive damages, states can determine the fault standard for private persons
- C.
Most states have established negligence as the private-person fault standard.
- D.
Libel actions are usually adjudicated in the place with the most significant relationship to the case
Correct Answer
A. The jury determines whether a plaintiff is a public officialExplanation
In libel suits, it is not the jury's role to determine whether a plaintiff is a public official. This determination is made by the court. The other statements in the question are true: states can determine the fault standard for private persons unless they are seeking presumed or punitive damages, most states have established negligence as the fault standard for private persons, and libel actions are usually adjudicated in the place with the most significant relationship to the case.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
Which of the following is not true in libel suits?
- A.
Actual malice must be shown with convincing clarity.
- B.
Actual malice is the standard of fault for public figures
- C.
A public official must establish that a defamatory statement was directed at the official's government unit, not at the official personally
- D.
To be designated a public figure, a person must have widespread fame or notoriety, or must have voluntarily thrust himself or herself into a matter of public controversy for the purpose of influencing the outcome of that controversy
Correct Answer
C. A public official must establish that a defamatory statement was directed at the official's government unit, not at the official personallyExplanation
In libel suits, it is not necessary for a public official to establish that a defamatory statement was directed at the official's government unit instead of the official personally. This statement is not true because a public official can sue for defamation if the statement is about them personally, regardless of whether it is directed at their government unit or not. The other statements are true: actual malice must be shown with convincing clarity, actual malice is the standard of fault for public figures, and a person can be designated as a public figure if they have widespread fame or notoriety or if they have voluntarily thrust themselves into a matter of public controversy.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
Which of the following is true in libel suits?
- A.
Being in the public eye and being a public figure are the same.
- B.
Private figures can be made public figures by bootstrapping
- C.
The proper question in establishing a person's private figure status is not whether the plaintiff volunteered for the publicity, but whether the plaintiff volunteered for an activity from which publicity would foreseeably arise.
- D.
Being voluntarily part of a public sphere or profession does not satisfy a court's public figure requirements.
Correct Answer
C. The proper question in establishing a person's private figure status is not whether the plaintiff volunteered for the publicity, but whether the plaintiff volunteered for an activity from which publicity would foreseeably arise.Explanation
In libel suits, the proper question to determine a person's private figure status is not whether they volunteered for publicity, but whether they volunteered for an activity that could reasonably result in publicity. This means that simply being in the public eye or being a public figure does not automatically make someone a public figure in the context of libel suits. Additionally, private figures can be made public figures through bootstrapping, which refers to intentionally making private information public. Voluntarily participating in a public sphere or profession does not necessarily satisfy the court's requirements for public figure status.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
True or False? Statements of pure opinion (which cannot be proved true or false) are protected by the First Amendment.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
Pure opinions, which cannot be proven true or false, are indeed protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, which includes the right to express one's opinions, regardless of their verifiability. It is important to note that this protection does not extend to defamatory statements or speech that incites violence or poses a clear and present danger. However, when it comes to statements of pure opinion, they are generally considered protected speech under the First Amendment.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
Which of the following is NOT representative of the 4-part Ollman test that distinguishes opinion from fact?
- A.
The inquiry must analyze the common usage or meaning of the words.
- B.
Is the statement verifiable? (Can it be proven either true or false?)
- C.
What is the meaning of the statement when taken out of context? (Journalistic context doesn't matter in distinguishing fact from opinion. Only the actual words of the statement, standing alone, can be considered.)
- D.
What is the broader social context into which the statement fits?
Correct Answer
C. What is the meaning of the statement when taken out of context? (Journalistic context doesn't matter in distinguishing fact from opinion. Only the actual words of the statement, standing alone, can be considered.)Explanation
This answer is correct because it states that the meaning of the statement when taken out of context is not representative of the 4-part Ollman test. The test focuses on analyzing the common usage or meaning of words, verifying the statement's truth or falsity, and considering the broader social context. However, the meaning of the statement when taken out of context does not play a role in distinguishing fact from opinion according to the test.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
True or False? Fair comment and criticism is a Constitutional (First Amendment) defense that protects critics from lawsuits brought by individuals in the public eye
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
Fair comment and criticism is indeed a Constitutional (First Amendment) defense that protects critics from lawsuits brought by individuals in the public eye. This defense allows individuals to express their opinions and make critical statements about public figures without fear of legal repercussions. It is based on the principle that public figures should expect a higher level of scrutiny and criticism due to their prominent status in society. This protection ensures that freedom of speech is upheld and allows for open and robust public discourse.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
Which of the following is true in libel cases?
- A.
Defendants must demonstrate that a defamatory statement is completely true in order to maintain the truth defense.
- B.
Substantial truth, as opposed to complete truth, is sufficient to maintain the truth defense
- C.
A broadcaster's skeptical tone of voice is sufficient to defeat the truth defense.
- D.
Truth is not a complete defense in cases with media defendants.
Correct Answer
B. Substantial truth, as opposed to complete truth, is sufficient to maintain the truth defenseExplanation
In libel cases, the correct answer is that substantial truth, as opposed to complete truth, is sufficient to maintain the truth defense. This means that the defendant does not have to prove that every single detail of the statement is true, but rather that the overall gist or substance of the statement is true. As long as the main point or message of the statement is accurate, it can be considered a valid defense against defamation claims.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
Which of the following is true in libel cases?
- A.
Absolute privilege is the privilege of the reporter
- B.
Qualified privilege is the privilege of the speaker
- C.
The fair report privilege protects media reports of official government actions, regardless of possible defamatory elements in those reports.
- D.
The fair report privilege covers officials and proceedings in the executive and judicial branches of state and federal governments, but not in legislative branches.
Correct Answer
C. The fair report privilege protects media reports of official government actions, regardless of possible defamatory elements in those reports.Explanation
The fair report privilege protects media reports of official government actions, regardless of possible defamatory elements in those reports. This means that journalists can report on government actions without being held liable for any defamatory statements made in those reports. This privilege applies to both state and federal governments, as well as to the executive and judicial branches. However, it does not extend to the legislative branches.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
Which of the following is true in libel cases?
- A.
Letters to the editor usually are considered to be statements of fact.
- B.
The wire service defense holds that the accurate republication of a story provided by a reputable news agency does not constitute fault as a matter of law
- C.
According to the CDA, providers of interactive computer services (such as AOL) can be treated as publishers of defamatory information provided by entities other than the provider (so thus are liable for the libels published by those entities).
- D.
Judges sometimes grant summary judgments to plaintiffs if they can't prove actual malice.
Correct Answer
B. The wire service defense holds that the accurate republication of a story provided by a reputable news agency does not constitute fault as a matter of lawExplanation
The wire service defense is a legal principle that states that if a news agency accurately republishes a story provided by a reputable source, they cannot be held liable for any defamation claims. This means that if a news agency simply reports on information provided by another source without altering or adding any false information, they are not at fault for any potential defamation. This defense is based on the idea that the news agency is just acting as a conduit for information and should not be held responsible for the accuracy of the original source.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 17, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Mar 09, 2010Quiz Created by
Cucaracho
Back to top