USF MMC 4200 Exam 2 Questions and Answers All Correct

USF MMC 4200 Exam 2 Questions and Answers All Correct Miami Herald v. Tornillo - Answer-Did Florida Statute Section 104.38, the "right to reply" statute, violate the free press clause of the First Amendment applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment? Yes. The Court reversed the Supreme Court of Florida and held that Florida's "right to reply" statute violated the freedom of press found in the First Amendment. FCC v. Pacifica - Answer-Does the First Amendment deny government any power to restrict the public broadcast of indecent language under any circumstances? No. The Court held that limited civil sanctions could constitutionally be invoked against a radio broadcast of patently offensive words dealing with sex and execration. The words need not be obscene to warrant sanctions. Florida Star v. BJF - Answer-Florida Stat. § 794.03 is unconstitutional because it deems the truthful reporting of information that was legally obtained from public record, which is lawful under the first amendment, unlawful. Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn - Answer-information that is published in public record is legal to publish in the media Armstrong v. H&C Communications - Answer-Intentional Infliction: Conduct that is so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Time Inc. v. Hill - Answer-Is a publication, containing misrepresentations about the subject of its coverage, protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees? Yes. The Court held that individual officials who are publicly known are not able to make claims for inaccurate media coverage except in the case of reckless or willful reporting of said inaccuracies. (actual malice) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - Answer-Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress? Yes. The Court held that public figures may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice." Braun v. Soldier of Fortune - Answer-Publishers may be held liable for negligence for injuries caused by their ads only if it is clear form looking at the ad that there is a substantial danger or harm to the public Gentile v. Bar Association - Answer-The First Amendment rights to those participating in a criminal trial must be balanced against the defendant's right to a fair trial. For this reason an attorney's right to comment on a case he is involved in may be "limited by the substantial likelihood of material prejudice to the impending trial." Murphy v. Florida - Answer-Murphy argued his criminal record prevented him from receiving a fair trial. The USSC held that members of the jury need not be "totally ignorant of the facts and issues" of a case. A mere familiarity with a defendant did not equal a predisposition against him/her. Sheppard v. Maxwell - Answer-What threshold must be crossed before a trial is said to be so prejudicial, due to context and publicity, as to interfere with a defendant's Fifth Amendment due process right to a fair trial? The Court held that expression must not be so broad as to divert the trial away from its primary purpose: adjudicating both criminal and civil matters in an objective, calm, and solemn courtroom setting. Nebraska Press Assoc. v. Stuart - Answer-Did the judge's order violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Yes. The Court agreed with the trial judge that the murder case would generate "intense and pervasive pretrial publicity," but "a whole community cannot be restrained from discussing a subject intimately affecting life within it." Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia - Answer-Did the closure of the trial to the press and public violate the First Amendment or the Sixth Amendment? Yes. The Court held that the right to attend criminal trials was "implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment." The Court held that the First Amendment encompassed not only the right to speak but also the freedom to listen and to receive information and ideas. The Court also noted that the First Amendment guaranteed the right of assembly in public places such as courthouses. Press Enterprise I - Answer-the public has the right to attend jury selection during criminal trials unless there is an overriding interest that must be protected Press Enterprise II - Answer-the public has the right to attend pretrial hearings in criminal cases, including preliminary hearings Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - Answer-Is a refusal to disclose an individual's personal FBI crime record to a third party justifiable under the "personal privacy" invasion exemption of the Freedom of Information Act? Yes. The Court held that an individual's interest in nondisclosure of any criminal records that the FBI might have on him or her is precisely the sort of "personal privacy" that Congress intended to protect when it enacted FOIA exemptions. RCFP's request was overly broad. The request sought access to all FBI records on Medico, rather than specific information concerning his file. Moreover, the Court stated that public interest in criminal record information is not increased simply because the requesting party is a news agency. Pell v. Procunier - Answer-Is it unconstitutional to prohibit the media physical access to prison inmates? No. The information sought can still be acquired via alternative means of communication. Therefore, the freedom of press is not denied in any way. Branzburg v. Hayes - Answer-Is the requirement that news reporters appear and testify before state or federal grand juries an abridgment of the freedoms of speech and press as guaranteed by the First Amendment? No. The Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. - Answer-Does the First Amendment bar a plaintiff from recovering damages, under state promissory estoppel law, for a newspaper's breach of a promise of confidentiality? No. The Court held that the First Amendment did not bar a promissory estoppel suit against the press. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily - Answer-Did the search of The Daily's newsroom violate the First and Fourth Amendments? No. The Court held that the "third party" search of the newsroom did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that such searches, accompanied by warrants, were legitimate when it had been "satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises." How is the right to privacy defined? Where did the right to privacy come from? Is it expressed in the Constitution? - Answer-a. The right to be left alone. The right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity. b. Harvard Law Review article c. Expressed in the penumbra of the constitution (first, third, fourth, ninth amendments) What are the four major categories of privacy actions? - Answer-a. Appropriation- using a person's name, picture, voice, or identify for commercial or trade purposes without permission b. Intrusion- the unconsented violation of one's legally protected sphere of privacy (property and eavesdropping) c. Public disclosure- releasing facts highly offensive to person and not of public interest d. Portrayal in a false light- creation of a false impression