Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Editing Entertainment Law
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
POLICY: Tension between Legislative Policy vs. Public/Popular Opinion | POLICY: Tension between Legislative Policy vs. Public/Popular Opinion | ||
The New York Times v. Sullivan (US 1964): It is the duty of citizens to criticize the gov’t and officials and requires constitutional immunity; “There’s a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that is may well include vehement, caustic, and…unpleasantly sharp attacks” | |||
Brandenburg v. OH (US 1969): KKK advocate said “revengeance must be taken” -- First Amendment is violated when punishing the pure advocacy of illegal force; Only “advocacy directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and that is likely to incite or produce such action” can be illegal (overturns prior case allowing for punishment of such speech) | Brandenburg v. OH (US 1969): KKK advocate said “revengeance must be taken” -- First Amendment is violated when punishing the pure advocacy of illegal force; Only “advocacy directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and that is likely to incite or produce such action” can be illegal (overturns prior case allowing for punishment of such speech) | ||
Line 225: | Line 225: | ||
“Whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact…” | “Whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact…” | ||
The New York Times v. Sullivan (US 1964): (1) ACTUAL MALICE: Defamation actions brought by public officials require P prove the statement was made with actual malice—(a) knowing its falsity or (b) made with reckless disregard as to the truth; by clear and convincing evidence; (2) Appellate courts must examine the entire record to insure that a trial judgment does not impinge First Amendment freedoms—public’s duty is to criticize | |||
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (US 1967): ACTUAL MALICE standard applies to public figures, not just public officials | Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (US 1967): ACTUAL MALICE standard applies to public figures, not just public officials |