Exam (elaborations)
MEJO 341 Midterm Exam Study Questions with Verified Answers
- Course
- Institution
MEJO 341 Midterm Exam Study Questions with Verified Answers
[Show more]
Content preview
MEJO 341 Midterm Exam Study Questionswith Verified Answers
If you state the facts on which you are basing your opinion, and the opinion you state could be
reasonably drawn from those truthful facts, you will be protected even if your opinion turns out
to be incorrect.
For example, if you were to say "In my opinion, Danielle is failing out of school" it would likely
lead your readers to assume that there are some unstated facts you relied on to draw your
conclusion.
Such a statement would not be protected, as the privilege does not protect back door entry of
facts as "opinion" through innuendo.
On the other hand, if you state "In my opinion, Danielle is failing out of school because she is a
blond and the only thing I ever see her do at the library is check Facebook," this provides the
reader with the information you are basing the opinion on, and allows the reader to come to
her own conclusion.
Defamatory (not protected) or non-defamatory (protected)?
"During the last six months I've seen Carol in her backyard five times at around 1:30pm on a
weekday seated in a deck chair with a beer in her hand. I think Carol must be an alcoholic." -
✔✔The first example states true, non-defamatory facts upon which a reasonable conclusion
(that Carol is an alcoholic) is based, and also emphasizes the limits of your knowledge (that you
only saw Carol five times).
It would be protected as a statement of opinion.
Defamatory (not protected) or non-defamatory (protected)?
"I think Carol must be an alcoholic." - ✔✔Under the second example, readers would likely
assume that there are unstated, defamatory facts upon which your conclusion is based.
,Therefore it would likely not be protect and would fall outside of the privilege.
Caution when stating false facts to back up an opinion - ✔✔Even if you state the facts you
are relying on for your opinion, but those facts turn out to be false, the privilege will not apply.
For example, if you say that "In my opinion, Beauregard is failing out of school because he failed
Media Law," the privilege would not apply if he got a C in Media Law.
Facts - ✔✔statements that can be proven true or false
Ex. "Beau is a thief" can be proven false by showing that he has never stolen anything.
Opinions - ✔✔matters of belief or ideas that cannot be proven one way or the other
Ex. "Beau is a complete moron" is an opinion as what constitutes a moron is a subjective view
that varies by person. There is no way to prove that Beau is a moron.
Opinion caveats are not a shield - ✔✔You can't make a statement an opinion merely by
prefacing it with "in my opinion."
Saying that "in my opinion, Alex stole ten dollars from the church collection basket" would lead
most listeners to conclude you had evidence that Alex had indeed stolen the money, and that
you intend the statement as one of fact rather than opinion.
Courts do not give protection to false factual connotations disguised as opinions.
Distinguishing "pure opinion" - ✔✔Opinions that imply false underlying facts will not be
protected.
,For example, stating that "Beauregard is insane" could be both a fact and an opinion.
It could mean Beau has been diagnosed with psychosis and needs to be hospitalized in a mental
institution; this could be proven false.
It could also mean that Beau has wacky ideas that one doesn't agree with, which is an opinion.
In determining which meaning the statement should be given, courts often rely on context and
common-sense logic (or to phrase it in legalese, the "totality of circumstances" of the
publication).
For example, if one called Beau insane in a forum post as part of a heated argument over
politics, the statement would likely be interpreted as an opinion.
Leidholt v. L.F.P. Inc. - ✔✔Statements in the "******* of the Month" column in Hustler
magazine that described a feminist leader as a "pus bloated walking sphincter," "wacko," and
someone who suffers from "bizarre paranoia" were protected opinion
The context of the magazine and column made it clear that the statements were "understood
as ridicule or vituperation" and "telegraph to a reader that the article presents opinions, not
allegations of fact."
Jewell v. NYP Holdings, Inc. - ✔✔Statement in the New York Post that referred to the plaintiff
as a "fat, failed, former sheriff's deputy" was protected opinion
It was hyperbole and had an "alliterative quality" with a "rhetorical effect indicative of a
statement of opinion."
Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting - ✔✔Statements on a radio talk show that described the
plaintiff as a "chicken butt," "local loser" and "big skank" were not defamatory
, They were "too vague to be capable of being proven true or false" and had "no generally
accepted meaning."
*Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - ✔✔A cartoon of a noted evangelist leader fornicating drunk in
an outhouse with his mother because the parody was so outrageous it could not "reasonably be
understood as describing actual facts" about Falwell or events in which he participated.
Context and medium - ✔✔Courts will look at the context and medium in which the alleged
defamation occurred.
For example, a statement is more likely to be regarded as an opinion rather than a fact if it
occurs in an editorial blog as opposed to a piece of investigative journalism.
The wider context may also provide a framework for the court: during the McCarthy-era witch
hunts of the 1950s, for example, courts routinely held that referring to someone as a
"Communist" was defamatory
In the present day, "communist" has taken on a more generalized (if still often derogatory)
political meaning, and courts would almost certainly find use of the word to be a protected
opinion
The factors courts often use to determine whether a statement is a protected opinion are: -
✔✔What is the common usage and specific meaning of the language used?
Is the statement verifiable? Can it be proven false?
What is the full context of the statement?
What are the social conventions surrounding the medium the statement occurred in?
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Examsplug. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $14.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
76710 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now