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.