MC 401 – Exam 2 – 2026 – Study Guide and Practice
Material
News - ANS✔✔ • News: The FCC has come down on the side of net neutrality today. From
Washington Post: FCC approved strict new rules for Internet providers. Making sure web
remains level playing field. Illegal for companies to slow down streaming moveis, games, etc.
Prohibited from establishing "fast lanes" for some websites for an extra fee. Also applies to
wireless carriers as well as cable. A lawsuit will probably come out of this.
• Copyright lawsuit in Los Angeles with "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke. Claiming he copied
Marvin Gaye. Tried to show that similar pop songs have the same lines, chords, feels, etc. Sound
the same on a superficial level with party sounds, base lines, and cowbells, etc. However, he
brought a piano in the courtroom to show the differences. You can't copyright a feel, though. If
you look at the copyright-able elements of the song, most people would argue it's probably not
infringement.
Torts of Privacy - ANS✔✔ • Starting in on Privacy - another tort (civil wrong)
o Another way someone can sue you
o Torts of Privacy (make sure you know THIS DOES NOT EQUAL "constitutional right to privacy")
• (The word privacy is not in the constitution. So what does this refer to? This began in the late
50s - famous cases involving contraception. Can the state prevent people from buying
contraceptives? The argument was that the state should not intrude into that. Some of the right
to privacy ideas came here. Then, later expanded into the very controversial area of abortion -
the real concept of right to privacy came from Roe v. Wade.)
o Torts of Privacy
• 2 people wrote a piece in the Harvard Law Review - Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis - 1890
- Came up with the idea that the media and the yellow journalism were too intrusive into
people's private lives. His daughter was getting married. Had a party for his daughter. Some
newspapers reported on it. Said who was there, the décor, etc. Warren was very upset by this.
Anti-Kardashian of his day. He didn't want his private life in the press for everyone's scrutiny.
Said there ought to be a law against this. Wrote possibly the most successful piece of legal
writing ever. Created a theory of law from this article. Out of this, the 4 torts of privacy
eventually came out of this. Their strategy - they wanted to create new area of the law.
,However, the common law worships the past - so this is a problem. Stare decisis. How do you
get around that? Create a new area of the common law while seeming not to. They said,
"Everything we're proposing here is already in the law if you look hard enough - trespass law,
copyright law etc." Didn't say, "Here's my new shiny idea" but framed it as elaborating upon
areas already existing in the law.
False Light - ANS✔✔ "presenting someone in a manner other than he or she actually is"; The
test in most jurisdictions includes 2 key elements:
a. The statement must be offensive to a reasonable person.
b. It must be done with reckless disregard for or knowledge of falsity. (AKA Actual Malice) - It
has now been incorporated into privacy law. Everyone who sues for this must show actual
malice now. No matter who they are. Kind of sounds like defamation. Some state courts have
rejected this kind of tort in their jurisdiction for that reason - "We already have defamation."
c. Defamation vs. False Light
i. Defamation
1. Designed to recover for harm to reputation
2. Just has to go out to one other (outside) person for it to be something you can sue for
3. Must be BAD - undesirable terms, etc.
ii. False Light
1. Designed to recover for plaintiff's own feelings
2. Was born in mass media age; Must be "widely disseminated"
3. Doesn't have to be bad - can be in the range of neutral to favorable as long as it's not true
d. EX: Cantrell v. Forest City
i. Demonstrates how something could be neutral/favorable about someone and still generate a
false light. Cantrell is the plaintiff. Lost her husband. Died in bridge collapse. Tragedy. A year
later, local newspaper did a retrospective on where are they now for the survivors of the
tragedy. Cantrell was one of the subjects. Had many children. Living in poverty. Reporter
portrayed her as doing pretty well. Used words like "stoic" or "impassive" about her dead
husband. Doing ok. This is clearly not defamatory. She sued b/c it put her in a false light. The
basis of her claim - the reporter tried to interview her and she wasn't there. He had just created
, the story from his head. That's actual malice. She said, "That's not me. That presents me in a
way I'm not. I'm poor and miserable." Not defamation, but consti
Intrusion - ANS✔✔ a. "Invasion of a person's solitude or seclusion by physical, electronic, or
mechanical means" - Someone invading your personal space, basically. (i.e. recording
someone's conversations in a private place, taking pictures of them, shooting video, etc.)
b. Intrusion is a tort of newsgathering NOT publication. Therefore, you don't have to share it.
Just the fact that you took the picture or intruded with voice recording, etc. Publication is
irrelevant. What does that mean in terms of the 1st Amendment? It primarily protects
publication rights. So, you don't have much 1st Amendment protections here. Therefore, you
don't have the 1st Amendment rights to cling to here. Probably strongest in your own home.
c. Test that most courts use:
i. Did the plaintiff have a "reasonable expectation of privacy?" Did they reasonably think, "This is
my personal space?"
ii. EX: 1 Someone bursts through the door of Room 222 in Reese Phifer and pans the room with
a video camera. Did we have a reasonable expectation of privacy? No. We're out in public.
Anyone could stroll in off the street. This is not your special place. No tort here.
iii. EX: 2 If you're driving on University Blvd. Someone rear ends you. You get out of the car and
sit on the curb, injured. A reporter rushes at you with a microphone. No reasonable expectation
of privacy here, either.
iv. EX: 3 You go to the Strip. Buy a drink or two. Someone shoots some video of you as you walk
around the bar. No, you're in a public bar.
v. EX: 4 You go home to your house in the Historic District. You are hanging out there. Violate
Tuscaloosa City Ordinance by having an upholstered couch out on the porch. This is seriously an
ordinance. Sitting on it. Having a cocktail. And, someone shoots some video of you there. You're
on your own property. No, because you're outside on your porch. In publi
News - ANS✔✔ • We will not cover CH 16 - Telecommunication Regulation - in the book. We
will skip that. We will cover CH 7, 8, 14, 15, and then take Test 2 on that material. Omitting a
couple of chapters. We will not take it on April 2, most likely.
• Torts of Privacy:
Material
News - ANS✔✔ • News: The FCC has come down on the side of net neutrality today. From
Washington Post: FCC approved strict new rules for Internet providers. Making sure web
remains level playing field. Illegal for companies to slow down streaming moveis, games, etc.
Prohibited from establishing "fast lanes" for some websites for an extra fee. Also applies to
wireless carriers as well as cable. A lawsuit will probably come out of this.
• Copyright lawsuit in Los Angeles with "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke. Claiming he copied
Marvin Gaye. Tried to show that similar pop songs have the same lines, chords, feels, etc. Sound
the same on a superficial level with party sounds, base lines, and cowbells, etc. However, he
brought a piano in the courtroom to show the differences. You can't copyright a feel, though. If
you look at the copyright-able elements of the song, most people would argue it's probably not
infringement.
Torts of Privacy - ANS✔✔ • Starting in on Privacy - another tort (civil wrong)
o Another way someone can sue you
o Torts of Privacy (make sure you know THIS DOES NOT EQUAL "constitutional right to privacy")
• (The word privacy is not in the constitution. So what does this refer to? This began in the late
50s - famous cases involving contraception. Can the state prevent people from buying
contraceptives? The argument was that the state should not intrude into that. Some of the right
to privacy ideas came here. Then, later expanded into the very controversial area of abortion -
the real concept of right to privacy came from Roe v. Wade.)
o Torts of Privacy
• 2 people wrote a piece in the Harvard Law Review - Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis - 1890
- Came up with the idea that the media and the yellow journalism were too intrusive into
people's private lives. His daughter was getting married. Had a party for his daughter. Some
newspapers reported on it. Said who was there, the décor, etc. Warren was very upset by this.
Anti-Kardashian of his day. He didn't want his private life in the press for everyone's scrutiny.
Said there ought to be a law against this. Wrote possibly the most successful piece of legal
writing ever. Created a theory of law from this article. Out of this, the 4 torts of privacy
eventually came out of this. Their strategy - they wanted to create new area of the law.
,However, the common law worships the past - so this is a problem. Stare decisis. How do you
get around that? Create a new area of the common law while seeming not to. They said,
"Everything we're proposing here is already in the law if you look hard enough - trespass law,
copyright law etc." Didn't say, "Here's my new shiny idea" but framed it as elaborating upon
areas already existing in the law.
False Light - ANS✔✔ "presenting someone in a manner other than he or she actually is"; The
test in most jurisdictions includes 2 key elements:
a. The statement must be offensive to a reasonable person.
b. It must be done with reckless disregard for or knowledge of falsity. (AKA Actual Malice) - It
has now been incorporated into privacy law. Everyone who sues for this must show actual
malice now. No matter who they are. Kind of sounds like defamation. Some state courts have
rejected this kind of tort in their jurisdiction for that reason - "We already have defamation."
c. Defamation vs. False Light
i. Defamation
1. Designed to recover for harm to reputation
2. Just has to go out to one other (outside) person for it to be something you can sue for
3. Must be BAD - undesirable terms, etc.
ii. False Light
1. Designed to recover for plaintiff's own feelings
2. Was born in mass media age; Must be "widely disseminated"
3. Doesn't have to be bad - can be in the range of neutral to favorable as long as it's not true
d. EX: Cantrell v. Forest City
i. Demonstrates how something could be neutral/favorable about someone and still generate a
false light. Cantrell is the plaintiff. Lost her husband. Died in bridge collapse. Tragedy. A year
later, local newspaper did a retrospective on where are they now for the survivors of the
tragedy. Cantrell was one of the subjects. Had many children. Living in poverty. Reporter
portrayed her as doing pretty well. Used words like "stoic" or "impassive" about her dead
husband. Doing ok. This is clearly not defamatory. She sued b/c it put her in a false light. The
basis of her claim - the reporter tried to interview her and she wasn't there. He had just created
, the story from his head. That's actual malice. She said, "That's not me. That presents me in a
way I'm not. I'm poor and miserable." Not defamation, but consti
Intrusion - ANS✔✔ a. "Invasion of a person's solitude or seclusion by physical, electronic, or
mechanical means" - Someone invading your personal space, basically. (i.e. recording
someone's conversations in a private place, taking pictures of them, shooting video, etc.)
b. Intrusion is a tort of newsgathering NOT publication. Therefore, you don't have to share it.
Just the fact that you took the picture or intruded with voice recording, etc. Publication is
irrelevant. What does that mean in terms of the 1st Amendment? It primarily protects
publication rights. So, you don't have much 1st Amendment protections here. Therefore, you
don't have the 1st Amendment rights to cling to here. Probably strongest in your own home.
c. Test that most courts use:
i. Did the plaintiff have a "reasonable expectation of privacy?" Did they reasonably think, "This is
my personal space?"
ii. EX: 1 Someone bursts through the door of Room 222 in Reese Phifer and pans the room with
a video camera. Did we have a reasonable expectation of privacy? No. We're out in public.
Anyone could stroll in off the street. This is not your special place. No tort here.
iii. EX: 2 If you're driving on University Blvd. Someone rear ends you. You get out of the car and
sit on the curb, injured. A reporter rushes at you with a microphone. No reasonable expectation
of privacy here, either.
iv. EX: 3 You go to the Strip. Buy a drink or two. Someone shoots some video of you as you walk
around the bar. No, you're in a public bar.
v. EX: 4 You go home to your house in the Historic District. You are hanging out there. Violate
Tuscaloosa City Ordinance by having an upholstered couch out on the porch. This is seriously an
ordinance. Sitting on it. Having a cocktail. And, someone shoots some video of you there. You're
on your own property. No, because you're outside on your porch. In publi
News - ANS✔✔ • We will not cover CH 16 - Telecommunication Regulation - in the book. We
will skip that. We will cover CH 7, 8, 14, 15, and then take Test 2 on that material. Omitting a
couple of chapters. We will not take it on April 2, most likely.
• Torts of Privacy:
