Drew Cockrell

Media Law 11:00, Tues. & Thurs.

Term Project
8 December, 2015
Media Law Term Project
Actual Malice - (Plaintiff) Dick Cheney, a city council member, may have been a victim of
actual malice by Johnny Jones editor. Jones editor worked for the Daily Bugle. Cheney could
have been a victim of actual malice by Jones editor publishing information that he knew not to
be true. Some of the information that Jones presented to his editor did conflict with information
that his editor already had on file. If the editor had doubts about the information provided in
Jones story, he would have been required to check if the questionable statements were true or
not. Cheney could argue that some information in Jones story was published even when the
editor had conflicting information, and believed parts of the story to be false. Actual malice
could be proven by proving that the editor did no investigation on the story to make sure the
conflicting statements made were true, or not, before publishing. Sense Cheney is a public
official, he must show proof that Jones editor acted with actual malice. He could retrieve the
conflicting information that the editor had against Jones story to prove malice. He could also
interview the newspapers attorney to provide proof that the attorney was never confronted for
advice or consultation by the editor. (Defendant) Jones editor could use an affirmative defense
to defend himself against Cheneys accusations. The editor could admit that he did in fact break
the law by publishing information that he believed to be false. Sense the story provided by Jones
conflicted with information he already had, he could admit that he was reluctant to publish the
Cockrell 2

story but had no way of seeking legal counsel because the newspapers attorney was
unreachable while on a bear hunt. It is also possible that the defendant felt like he did not have
time to wait for the newspapers attorney to return from his trip, nor did he know when the
attorney would return. He could admit that he felt pressured by Jones to publish the story and
was under such stress regarding the intensity of the storys scandal that it drove him to insanity.
He did not know who the unknown source was that gave Jones false information for his story.
He may admit that he was scared of whoever the unknown source was, and that he thought that
this person might be framing parts of the story up to benefit him/herself. The editor could state
that he wanted nothing to do with the story any longer, especially sense there may have been
stolen government money involved. He knew the seriousness of the scandal and could have
definitely worried that if he did not publish the story written by Jones, that the unknown source
could possibly come for him. He could plea that his thoughts were if he published the story
immediately, his name would be exempted from the scenario in which he felt trapped and
threatened, to the point of insanity.

Invasion of Privacy/Trespassion - (Plaintiff) Dick Cheney, a city council member, may have
been a victim of invasion of privacy by Johnny Jones, a reporter and photographer for the Daily
Bugle, when he scaled Cheneys fence to obtain photos of Cheney and a prostitute (Fannie
Mae). If one enters anothers private property, without their permission, the person who stepped
foot on the property could be liable for civil or criminal trespass and invasion of privacy.
Cheney must provide proof of ownership to his property, or the right to possession of property,
Cockrell 3
to take legal action against Jones for trespassing onto his yard. He also must provide proof of
trespassion, through damages, for common law disciplinary damage claims. The evidence,

provided by the plaintiff, must meet the clear and convincing standard of proof. (Defendant)
Johnny Jones possible defense may be no reasonable expectation of privacy existed. Jones may
not have completely jumped over the fence. He could argue that he simply looked over the
fence, then walked around to the front and waited across the street for Cheney and Fannie Mae to
come outside. It was never mentioned in the story whether damages occurred or not, so we can
assume there was no damage done. If no damages were done to Cheneys property, he cannot
meet the clear and convincing standard of proof. Sense it is said that Jones immediately started
running down the street when Cheney saw him, we can assume that he took the photos while
standing on or next to the street and not directly on Cheneys property. The couple also walked
outside of the house when Jones took the photos so it is a definite possibility that anyone could
have seen them outside, therefore they may not have been considered private.

Libel: (Plaintiff) - Sean Connery, the pharmacist, could argue that he was a victim of libel (per
se) when Jones named him as a blackmailer in his article. Connery must provide six elements to
prove that he was a victim of libel. The six elements include defamation, identification,
publication, damage, falsity, and fault. Sense Connery has not yet been charged with blackmail,
he could prove defamation because Jones used hurtful words against him, like blackmailer.
Connery has not yet been convicted of blackmail, so he is still safe to say those words are false.
Identification is proven by Jones literally naming Connery in his article. Publication is proven
Cockrell 4
because the article was published and printed by the Daily Bugle for all to see. Connery could
show damage was done by applying the damage type of assumed damages. Sense he has no
property or physical damage to display, the court can assume that Connery suffered harm to his
reputation, or experienced shame, or hurt feelings. Connery may show falsity by simply stating

that he never blackmailed Cheney and he never knew Cheney was having an affair. Connery can
prove fault on Jones by showing he was negligent in publishing the story. He might say that no
reasonably prudent person would publish such a story. (Defendant) Jones could possibly defend
himself by arguing that Connery is a public figure in Puretown. Public figures must prove actual
malice, not just negligence. Connery is an advocate of gay rights and owns a local pharmacy in
Puretown, Oklahoma. The majority of people in town probably know who he is. Jones could
say that he may have acted with negligence by calling Connery a blackmailer, but he did not
publish a story he knew was false. Jones can also request a summary judgment to end the case
without a trial. In order to request a summary judgement he must state that the story is true and
should therefore be dismissed. Sense the story has to do with a public official, and state and
federal funds, it is considered newsworthy due to the fact that it is of public interest.

Appropriation- (Plaintiff) Lawrence Welk, a 1950s band leader, may have been a victim of
appropriation at Sean Connerys pharmacy. Sean Connery, the owner of the pharmacy, used an
unauthorized picture of Lawrence Welk holding a bottle of Geritol to advertise his latest formula
of medical herbs. Appropriation is proven through non consent and damages occurred. Connery
asked no one for consent to use the photo and damages to Welks name could easily be proven
Cockrell 5
because Connerys medicine was making people sick. (Defendant) Sean Connerys defense may
be that only living human beings have rights of publicity and privacy interests. Sense Lawrence
Welk is dead, he cannot sue for appropriation. It is impossible to invade the privacy of dead
people. Connery should not be sued for appropriation of the name or likeness of Welk unless the
misappropriation took place before his death.

Promissory Estoppel - (Plaintiff) The anonymous source, who was one of Jones leaks from city
hall, could sue Jones through the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Jones ensured the source that
he/she would remain anonymous, but Jones ended up revealing the name of the source and they
lost their job. The source must prove that Jones made a clear and definite promise, that they
relied on that promise, that they suffered a significant detriment and relief can only come in the
form of Jones fulfilling the promise. (Defendant) Johnny Jones possible defense could be the
courts order. Jones refused to name any names until the DA got a judge to issue a court order,
demanding Jones to reveal the source, so it takes the blame off him..

Shield Law - (Plaintiff) Jonny Jones, the journalist, may sue the DA for violating shield law.
The DA got a court order to demand that Jones reveal his source. The Oklahoma shield law
states that no journalist can be required to disclose the source of any published or unpublished
information obtained in the gathering, receiving, or processing of information for any medium of
communication to the public. (Defendant) The DA, who forced Jones to reveal his source
through a court order, could defend themselves by providing substantial evidence that proves
Cockrell 6
Jones source is relevant to the lawsuit. The court can compel a journalist to testify if the court
reasons that the info is relevant to a lawsuit and cannot be obtained through any other means.
City money being used illegally is a good enough reason for a judge to order a testimony.

Trespassing- (Plaintiff) The Daily Bugle, the local newspaper, could sue officers of the court for
trespassing and performing an illegal newsroom search. The judge ordered the Bugle to be
searched for more evidence. The Daily Bugle, as a mass media outlet, is protected under the
privacy protection act of 1980. This act limits the way law officers and government agents can

search or seize materials. Materials that are in the hands of persons working for the mass media,
or persons who expect to publicly disseminate the material in some other manner. (Defendant)
Officers of the court could argue that the judge issued a subpoena to search the Daily Bugle. A
subpoena grants the court the right to perform a newsroom search. The defendants could provide
the subpoena, along with the reasoning for the subpoena, to defend themselves.

Publication of Private Information - (Plaintiff) Dick Cheney, a city council member, may sue
Johnny Jones, the reporter, for having private information published about him including nude
photographs. The information that Jones published was highly offensive to Cheney, and was not
a matter of public concern. For these two reasons alone, Jones would have committed a
publication of private information. Jones could argue that the information in his article is of the
publics interest. Its true the information published was offensive to Cheney, but that doesnt

Cockrell 7
necessarily mean its not of the publics interest. Jones must prove that the information in his
article is true, and that he was not in invading Cheneys privacy.

Neutral Reportage - (Plaintiffs) Dick Cheney, a council member, and Fannie Mae, the local
prostitute, are going to sue Jones for defamation in his article. Defamation is proven because
Jones had no evidence to back up his accusations, and the pictures and words in the article hurt
Cheney and Maes reputations. (Defendant) Jones may use reporting in neutral manner as a
defense in this case. The statements made by the anonymous source may be forms of libel, but
Jones could claim that he did not mean to imply the claims to be true.

Obscenity - (Plaintiff) Dick Cheney, a city council member, may sue the local T.V. Station for
using obscene photos of him on air. Cheney could use Oklahomas Obscenity statute, which is
based off the miller test, to prove that the images shown were obscene. Oklahomas Obscenity
statute says that material is deemed obscene if it contains three elements. First, If there are
depictions of or descriptions of sexual conduct, which are patently offensive as found by the
average person applying contemporary community standards. If the content, taken as a whole,
has a dominate theme and appeal to prurient interest in sex as found by the average person
applying contemporary community standards. The third, and final, element of Oklahomas
Obscenity statute states that if a reasonable person would find the material or performance taken
as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value it
is obscene. Cheney and Fannie Mae, the prostitute, were both in the photograph published.
Cockrell 8
Sense Cheney was naked with Mae, it could easily depict sexual conduct. The photograph could
offend people, taking into account that Cheney is a city council member. The content of the
photograph, as a whole, depicts Cheneys affair with Fannie Mae and lacks serious literary,
artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value. (Defendant) The T.V. station can
use the Miller test to argue that just because Cheney is naked, does not mean they cannot air the
photograph. Pornography is legal and protected by the first amendment, so the T.V. stations
production of the photo on air technically isnt illegal. The T.V. station just has to pass the three
elements of the Miller Test.

Slander - (Plaintiff) Sean Connery, the pharmacist, could argue that he was a victim of slander
by the words of the source, who told Johnny Jones that he was a blackmailer. Connery must
prove that Jones made a defamatory statement to at least one other and that he suffered what are

referred to as special damages as a result of the defamation. Special damages refer to actual
harm like loss of customers, being fired, or some other financial harm. Connery most likely
suffered a loss of customers, at his pharmacy, after the story was released. He would just need to
prove it. (Defendant) The source could argue that he was promised anonymity prior to stating
that Connery was a blackmailer. His words were never meant to intentionally hurt anyone
because he was promised anonymity by Jones.
False Light - (Plaintiff) Dick Cheney, a city council member, was placed in false light due to the
publication of Johnny Jones, the reporters, article and his reckless disregard for the truth.
Cheney is also placed in false light, by Jones, simply with the disclosure of information. The
Cockrell 9
article published could be highly offensive and embarrassing to Cheney. Giving false light to
another person is presenting them with a negative, and inaccurate, impression to others. Cheney
must prove two things to prove he was a victim of false light. He must prove that Jones article
was highly offensive to a reasonable person and that Jones had knowledge of or acted in
reckless disregard as to the falsity of the published article and the false light in which the other
would be placed. (Defendant) Johnny Jones can only defend himself if he can find proof of the
allegations about Cheney mentioned in his article.
Knowledge of Falsity - (Plaintiff) Dick Cheney, Sean Connery, and Fannie Mae could sue the
editor of the Daily Bugle if they can prove the six elements of libel and knowledge of falsity.
Knowledge of falsity falls under the fault element of a libel case. The editor had conflicting
information and believed the story to be false, yet he went ahead and allowed the story to be
published. To prove the editor had knowledge of falsity, the plaintiffs must prove that there was
high degree of awareness of the probable falsity of the defamatory material when it was

published or they must present sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in
fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the publication. (Defendant) The editor could
argue that knowledge of falsity can not be proven because he did not have a high degree of
awareness of the probable falsity of the defamatory material when it was published. He had
conflicting information against Jones story, but he only believed it to be false. He sought
counsel from the attorney, but he was out of town. Therefore, he could argue that he had some
knowledge of falsity, but not a high awareness which must be proven for the fault to work.