Libel and Defamation | Maggie Miller | April 13, 2016

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

Libel and Defamation

by Maggie Miller Show/Hide

 

Libel, Defamation, and False Light are concepts that are among the most basic ideas in Communication Law, and are seen in court cases often. Libel is defined as “a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation.” This differs from defamation, which is defined as “the action of damaging the good reputation of someone,” implying that this was done with the explicit intent of harming that person. Finally, false light is very similar to defamation, but differs in that it tries to “protect the plaintiff’s mental or emotional well-being” instead of reputation. We will explore these concepts, and the cases central to them in this project.

EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST

Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:

MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (7/7 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/7 playlist item notes are private)
  1. 1 Show/Hide More Zeran vs AOL Defamation Case
    Original Creator: Maggie Miller

    Breakdown of the Case

    Six days after the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in 1995, the phone number of Kenneth Zeran, the plaintiff, was attached to a message advertising merchandise that glorified the bombing in various ways that was posted on America Online, or AOL. Zeran began to receive angry calls about the advertisement, which he did not post, and he contacted AOL to have the advertisement taken down, which it was. However, the advertisement was repeatedly reposted by an anonymous source, each time putting Zeran’s home phone number as the contact information for buying the merchandise advertised. Zeran eventually contacted the FBI, which had to place his house under surveillance for a short while due to the huge amount of calls and threats Zeran was receiving, which at the height of the issue went up to one call every two minutes. A few months later, Zeran filed suit against AOL.
    In court, Zeran alleged that AOL had not acted fast enough to take down the messages, which were “fraudulent in nature” and which defamed him. AOL’s case hinged on the Communications Decency Act (CDA), specifically Section 230, which states that operators of internet services can’t be labeled as publishers of their content. However, the CDA went into law several months after the messages with Zeran’s phone number were published online, something the Lower Court had to debate allowing. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of AOL, saying that the CDA would be allowed to be applied retroactively, and therefore ruled against Zeran’s defamation claim.
    Zeran appealed the case to the Fourth Court, which again ruled against him, and then to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear his case.

    1. 1.1 Show/Hide More Zeran vs AOL Primary Sources
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller

      Primary Source #1


      Full Transcript of the Court Proceedings in Appeal


      This document is the original court proceedings in Zeran vs. America Online Inc. during the appeal stage to the Fourth Circuit Court, in which the court upheld the ruling of the Lower Court. This was due to Congress’s intention, as outlined in the Communications Decency Act (CDA), that this act would apply to all court cases ruled on after the CDA was enacted, which this case was.

      In the beginning of the document, the opinion of the court is stated, and then the case is outlined in Section I of the document. In Section II, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is discussed, and its potential repercussions to the case. The judge goes in depth on why Section 230, which gives immunity to internet service providers in cases in which something posted on their website by an anonymous user is deemed harmful, was added to the CDA in the first place. The judge is clearly in favor of Section 230, although both positives and negatives of the law are discussed. Section III is a lead-up to the decision in Section IV, and it is obvious that the Fourth Circuit Court will uphold the original ruling in favor of AOL, which is indeed does in Section IV. The link to the full transcript is here: https://www.eff.org/files/zeran-v-aol.pdf


    2. 1.2 Show/Hide More Zeran vs AOL Further Information
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller

      Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions: http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case81.cfm

      This article goes in-depth on the case, particularly on the court case section, and offers a link to the full transcript of the court case.

      Digital Media Law Project: http://www.dmlp.org/threats/zeran-v-america-online

      This source is one based on a site similar to the H2O project, in that there is a summary of the case given, followed by related links and details. Strong source, and a gateway to others legitimate sources.

      Tech Law Journal: http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/zeran/Default.htm

      This source, like the previous sources, gives an overview of Zeran vs. AOL, and breaks the case down into basic facts. This would make it easy for a member of the public to understand.

      Netlitigation: http://www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/cases/zeran.htm

      This source addresses the broader idea of First Amendment rights, which Zeran vs. AOL falls under, and gives a rundown of the case in order to give an example of a First Amendment case. This article also mentions Blumenthal vs. Drudge, a later case that will also be discussed in this paper.

      Global Freedom of Expression: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/zeran-v-america-online-inc/

      This source differs from the previous four in that it relates Zeran vs. AOL to worldwide trends on libel and defamation, and puts it in a global perspective to show how it would be judged elsewhere. This website in general is also a good resource for looking into the status of freedom of speech worldwide.

  2. 2 Show/Hide More Blumenthal vs Drudge
    Original Creator: Maggie Miller
    This case began in 1997 when Sidney Blumenthal, a former White House aide under President Clinton, and his wife sued Matt Drudge, the publisher of the online Drudge Report, for printing libelous statements concerning the way Blumenthal treated his wife Jacqueline. In this report, Drudge claimed that Blumenthal was an abusive husband. Due to the fact that AOL was the online host for The Drudge Report, the Blumenthals sued AOL as well. When Drudge was notified of the case pending against him in August, 1997, he immediately issued a retraction in The Drudge Report, and also sent an email to readers informing them of this development, along with personally apologizing to the Blumenthals. However, the couple still sued for defamation, and the case proceeded in court.
    In 1998, the court refused to dismiss the case against Drudge, but did so for AOL, stating that AOL was immune from these types of cases under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It wasn’t until 2001, though, that Drudge reached a settlement out of court with the Blumenthals, and on May 9 of that year, both parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal.
    1. 2.1 Show/Hide More Blumenthal vs. Drudge Primary Sources
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller

      Primary Source 1: Transcript of the Case:
      Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/jurisdiction/blumenthaledit.html
      Breakdown: In this document, the full court decision on the case of Blumenthal vs. Drudge is broken down, beginning with the offending article published in The Drudge Report and continuing on to the backstory of the case. In the first line, AOL, which was also charged with libel, is granted the motion it filed to have itself dismissed from the case. The judge is then documented as having refused the defendant Matt Drudge’s similar move to have the case dismissed on what Drudge claimed was a lack of personal jurisdiction. After this particular decision, the case was eventually settled out of court in 2001.

      Primary Source 2: Retraction by Drudge:
      Link: http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/drudge/70812ret.htm
      Breakdown: This is a very short email, in which Matt Drudge, the defendant, retracts the article published in The Drudge Report on August 11, 1997, in which the false statements about the plaintiff, White House staffer Sidney Blumenthal, were written. It is direct, and to the point, but it still central to the case, since it shows that Drudge was forced to take back his words, and indeed saw that the information he had written constituted defamation.

    2. 2.2 Show/Hide More Blumenthal vs Drudge Further Information
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller

      Digital Media Law Project: This particular source gives a brief rundown on Blumenthal vs. Drudge, and provides the reader with further sources to pursue as well.
      http://www.dmlp.org/threats/blumenthal-v-drudge

      Tech Law Journal: This website gives a summary of the case, then the history of when this case has been seen in court, along with further sources. http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/drudge/Default.htm

      Law School Case Briefs: This source is meant for students of law, and gives a thorough rundown of the Blumenthal vs. Drudge, including the case facts and an in-depth discussion. http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/11/blumenthal-v-drudge-case-brief.html

      Berkeley Technology Law Journal: This website gives a full rundown on not only the case, but the past laws associated with it, and gives reasons for why the judge ruled in the way that he did. http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=btlj

      Electronic Privacy Information Center: This website gives a further court opinion on the case, and gives more insight into the proceedings against Drudge and AOL. https://epic.org/free_speech/blumenthal_v_drudge.html

  3. 3 Show/Hide More Yeagle vs Collegiate Times Defamation Case
    Original Creator: Maggie Miller

    Sharon D. Yeagle was an assistant to the Vice President of Student Affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, where she “facilitated the participation of students in the 1996 Governor’s Fellowship Program.” In an article in The Collegiate Times, Virginia Tech’s student newspaper, about the program, text attributing a block quote to Yeagle identified her position as “Director of Butt Licking.” Yeagle sued for defamation, arguing that the literal interpretation of the article accused her of committing an act that was illegal under Virginia’s anti-sodomy statutes and also implied that she “curries favor with others by disingenuous behavior or directs others to do so.”  

    The Virginia Supreme Court confirmed the ruling of a lower court that ruled against Yeagle, arguing that the no reasonable reader could believe that “Director of Butt Licking” was in anyway an accurate reflection of Yeagle’s job or job performance and nothing more than a rhetorical device. Therefore, it can not be considered defamatory.

    1. 3.1 Show/Hide More Yeagle vs Collegiate Times Primary Sources
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller

      Primary Source #1: Supreme Court of Virginia Decision:

      The Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed Yeagle’s lawsuit again the Collegiate times, with Justice Elizabeth Lacy writing the majority opinion. Lacy acknowledges that the phrase “Director of Butt Licking” is “disgusting, offensive and in extremely bad taste” but argues that it cannot be “understood as stating an actual fact about Yeagle’s job title or conduct, or that she committed a crime of moral turpitude.” Lacy looks back to legal precedent that speakers/publications may use insulting or offensive language as long as it is considered no more than a “rhetorical hyperbole.”

      The dissenting opinion, written by Justices Cynthia Kinser and Lawrence Koontz, argues that Yeagle was in fact defamed, even if such defamation was indirect. While the phrase “Director of Butt Licking” does not outright claim that Yeagle curries favor with others in a disingenuous manner or committed a crime it, by The Collegiate Times’ own admission, implies as much. Kinser and Koontz argue that such defamation only needs to be implied to be held up in court, and believe that the case should have been decided by a jury.

      The link to this source: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1042458.html 

      Primary Source #2: Amicus Curiae from Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:

      The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Student Press Law Center filed a joint amoco curiae brief to the Supreme Court of Virginia in reference to Yeagle v. Collegiate Times. The first argument the brief offers is that the Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled that similarlily derogatory language directed and public officials such as “cocksucker” and “motherfucker” have been determined to not convey factual information about a person a “figurative expression” that is not meant to convey any facts, and therefore not hurtful to Yeagle’s career.

      The brief also argues that while the phrase may be offensive and personally hurtful to Yeagle, there is no precedent that would allow the state to punish speech that is both of those qualities but not defamatory. The brief compares the “Director of Butt Licking” phrase to satirical yet profane cartoons found in publications such as Hustler. It also argues that to begin prosecuting such speech would have a “chilling effect” on all free speech, and even vague yet negative terms such “jerk” could become subject to litigation.

      The final argument presented by the brief is that the Virginia constitution provides an “independent basis” for the protection of freedom of speech separate from the First Amendment.

      The link to this source is here: http://tjcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/1997-Yeagle-v.-The-Collegiate-Times.pdf 

    2. 3.2 Show/Hide More Yeagle vs Collegiate Times Further Information
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller

      Full RCFP Article: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/protection-satire-and-parody  

      This essay from the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press discusses what kind of satirical speech is protected by the First Amendment and what kind of practices publications should avoid if they do not want to be sued for libel.

      Appalachian Journal of Law: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/appalwj5&g_sent=1&id=45

      This article by John B. O’Keefe in the Appalachian Journal of Law discusses defamation litigation in the state of Virginia and makes many references to the Yeagle case

      Tort Litigation in Higher Education: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jcolunly26&g_sent=1&id=275

      This article by Edward von Geritchen discusses the Yeagle case and its implications for tort ligitation concerning institutions of higher learning.

      RCPF Article #2: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-fall-2004/avoiding-libel-satire 

      This article from the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press gives suggestions to journalists on how to avoid libel suits while writing satire, which serves as a helpful blueprint for defining what exactly libel and defamation are.

    3. 3.3 Show/Hide More Yeagle vs. Collegiate Times Audio/Visual Information
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller

      Video Entitled “Is Satire the Same as Defamation?” Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Imn_kG6ro

      This student-made video provides a succinct explanation on how satire is protected from defamation claims.

      “How Do You Prove Libel and Slander” Law Video. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpzybcswpxw

      This video details how libel and slander are proven in a court of law.

  4. 4 Show/Hide More New York Times vs Sullivan Defamation Case
    Original Creator: Maggie Miller

    The New York Times, during their the Civil Rights movement and the protest in the South, ran an advertisement that solicited funds to assist in the defense of arrested civil rights activists. However, the problem was with the the mistaken information within the ad. Although the mistakes were very minor, L.B. Sullivan, the Safety Commissioner for the county mentioned in the ad, believed it was enough for defamation. Sullivan was never officially named in the ad. As required, he sent a letter to NYT asking for a retraction, but they refused saying that the ad never mentioned him by name. Sullivan immediately sued the Times and the case eventually landed with the Supreme Court. `


    The court voted ruled unanimously  (9-0) for NYT and the “Actual malice” principle was born. The court ruled that, especially in the case of public officials and public figures, media outlets (the press) have their freedom of speech protected even if what they said is false. The “actual malice” rule applies to those in the public eye because it is generally seen that their lives are of interest to the public. And as they choose to have these roles, they also understand that the media will be watching and reporting on their daily lives.

    1. 4.1 Show/Hide More New York Times vs. Sullivan Primary Sources
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller

      Primary Source 1: Text of the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Libel Case Against The News York Times. Link is here: http://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/10/text-of-the-supreme-courts-opinion-in-libel-case-against-the-new-york-times.html?_r=0 

      This document shows the court’s opinion exactly as they reasoned through it. The court started by explaining the importance of the case,  how the court was for the first time tasked to “determine the extent to which the consti­tutional protections for speech and press limit a state's power toward damages in a libel ac­tion brought by a public official.”

      The document goes through an explanation of the case, who the defendant and plaintiff are and what the original case is. The justice even notes how the  incorrect details in the original ad were such as “students staged a demonstration on the State Capitol steps, they sang the Na­tional Anthem and not “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee.” The document states why the plaintiff believes that the case is one of libel. Then, it gives the court's decision and the justification for their ruling. It also explains what “actual malice” is and why it was not met in this case.

      Primary Source 2: Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama. Link is here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html

      A certiorari is the order from a higher court that is reviewing a lower court’s decision. In this document, the arguments brought by the different sides (and the justices) is documented. It goes through the case, much like the first primary document, but it inserts more of the individual voice of those involved.

      It is helpful in showing how exactly the case was argued. It also goes through the reasoning for why this specific case was chosen to be tried before the Supreme Court.

    2. 4.2 Show/Hide More New York Times vs. Sullivan Further Information
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller

      ABA Journal Article: 
      Link: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/50_years_after_new_york_times_v._sullivan_do_courts_still_value_journalists/

      This article looks at how the NYT vs. Sullivan case is still relevant after 50 years. It also talks about how the First Amendment and the right to free speech have been under attack and questioned since 9/11. A major problem for journalists, especially, being the fact that they are often brought to court and ordered to reveal their sources.

      Legal Information Institute Article Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254

      Montana Law Review Article Link: http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=mlr

    3. 4.3 Show/Hide More New York Times vs. Sullivan Audio/Visual Sources
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller

      Oyez Full Case Reccording Link:

      https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39 

  5. 5 Show/Hide More Anti-SLAPP Laws
    Original Creator: Maggie Miller

    A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit filed to by one party to intimidate another party that is critical of the plaintiff with the prospect of a costly legal battle that will dissuade them from voicing their criticism. The intention is typically not to win the lawsuit, but to pacify the defendants via the pressure an expense legal defense brings. When SLAPPs are filed, they are usually said by the plaintiff to be defamation claims, arguing that whatever criticism the defendant offered was libelous.


    Anti-SLAPP laws allow defendants in SLAPP cases to sue the initial plaintiffs. In order to win an anti-SLAPP case the plaintiff must show that they will win the original lawsuit and that the speech they are being sued for is of public concern. A successful anti-SLAPP case can result in the plaintiff receiving compensation for attorney’s fees from the defendant.

    1. 5.1 Show/Hide More Gardner vs. Martino Anti-SLAPP Case
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller
      Blah blah blahalkdf;lakdfsa;lkfjsad;f
      1. 5.1.1 Show/Hide More Gardner vs Martino Primary Sources
        Original Creator: Maggie Miller

        Primary Source #1: Opinion in Gardner v. Martino, Link is here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/23/0635437.pdf 

        Mike Martino hosted a syndicated talk show in Washington State that addressed consumer based problems. In one episode, he discussed Melissa Fregolia’s expierence with Mt. Hood Polaris, a watersports gear distributor that sold her a jet ski that experienced repeated mechanical failures and which they had yet to repair or provide a refund for. Martino claimed that Mt. Hood Polaris was “lying” to Fregolia when she said that they were unable to provide her with a refund.

        One of the arguments Mt. Hood Polaris made was that the statements made by Fregolia that lead Martino to conclude that they were “lying” were not truthful statements, and therefore defamatory. However, according to the opinion, Martino would only be liable for making such statements if he knew that the statements made by Fregolia were not true and therefore acted with actual malice. Because Martino had no way of knowing whether or not the information being provided to him was true and was merely reacting on air, his remarks are not actionable.

        Furthermore, Martino’s reference to Mt. Hood Polaris “lying” were ruled to be hyperbolic statements, as he made other, previous statements such as “Polaris sucks” that could not be considered factual or literal. Therefore, it is possible to interpret that he was hyperbolizing whether or not he actually believed Mt. Hood Polaris was lying or not. As a result, the case was thrown out.

        Primary Source #2: Opinion in Paterno v. Superior Court – Ampersand Publishing, Link here: 
        http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1206589.html  

        When Susan Paterno wrote an article for American Journalism Review about the purchase of Santa Barbara News-Press, she upset the publisher. Paterno’s article talked about how there were internal problems within the news outlet after the purchase by Wendy McCaw. Her article spoke of how McCaw and her publishing company, Ampersand Publishing, was influencing what the paper wrote about and was not fully impartial.


        McCaw sued Paterno through her publishing company. They claimed that Paterno’s article damaged their image because they were baseless. Paterno, on the other hand, wrote the article after conducting dozens of interviews with former employees and current ones as well. She filed an Anti-SLAPP counter and the case was later dismissed against her.

    2. 5.2 Show/Hide More Peterno vs. Superior Court Anti-SLAPP Case
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller
      alksdfj;alsfjksad;lfkjsa;fdlksa;lfksalfkdj
      1. 5.2.1 Show/Hide More Peterno vs. Superior Court Primary Sources
        Original Creator: Maggie Miller

        Peterno vs. Superior Court- Ampersand Publishing, Link here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1206589.html

        When Susan Paterno wrote an article for American Journalism Review about the purchase of Santa Barbara News-Press, she upset the publisher. Paterno’s article talked about how there were internal problems within the news outlet after the purchase by Wendy McCaw. Her article spoke of how McCaw and her publishing company, Ampersand Publishing, was influencing what the paper wrote about and was not fully impartial.

        McCaw sued Paterno through her publishing company. They claimed that Paterno’s article damaged their image because they were baseless. Paterno, on the other hand, wrote the article after conducting dozens of interviews with former employees and current ones as well. She filed an Anti-SLAPP counter and the case was later dismissed against her.

    3. 5.3 Show/Hide More Anti-SLAPP Laws Further Information
      Original Creator: Maggie Miller

      RCFP Article Link: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-fall-2010/slapp-happy-america 

      This post from the Research Center for Freedom of the Press handily outlines what a SLAPP is, and what kinds of laws have been passed and (as of its publication) are in the process of being passed to help defend people against SLAPPs.

      The Savvy Online Consumer Article Link:http://www.sitejabber.com/blog/2010/09/30/the-need-for-federal-anti-slapp-legislation/

      Digital Commons Article Link: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2214&context=llr

      This article by Kathryn W. Tate describes in great detail how California’s anti-SLAPP laws (considered some of the strongest in the country) are used and their scope.

  6. 6 Show/Hide More Libel and Defamation Hypothetical
    Original Creator: Maggie Miller

    Daniel Drumpf is a wealthy businessman who has shocked the nation by deciding to run for President of the United States. Drumpf has already won a few of the early primaries, and all signs show that he is well on his way to winning his party’s nomination. However, his campaign has attracted the support of some unsavory characters, including leaders of white supremacist organizations, and Drumpf himself has made comments that some people have interpreted as xenophobic.

    A few days after his latest primary win, Lieber T. Flame, a popular columnist for The Washington Sentinel, wrote a column for the newspaper that was highly critical of Drumpf, especially the following paragraph: “Let’s make on thing abundantly clear: Drumpf is, effectively, a fascist. He has slyly courted the vote of white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other unsavory groups through his barely disguised appeals to racist and xenophobic policies. An America under a Drumpf presidency is one that forces Muslims to wear the equivalent of a yellow-star and deports immigrants and destroys their families with extreme prejudice. Drumpf’s ultimate goal is to recast the government of the United States in his image, one that values victory at all cost and avoids compromise like the plague. The election of Daniel Drumpf would ensure the death of American democracy as we know it.”

    The day after the column is published, Drumpf files a suit against Flame and The Washington Sentinel, claiming that Drumpf has been libeled because he not a member of any facist organization and is not a racist. Meanwhile, Flame and The Washington Sentinel have filed a countersuit alleging that, since the column represents the opinion of Flame and is not necessarily meant to convey factual information, Drumpf’s lawsuit holds no merit and is in fact a SLAPP meant to prevent the newspaper from printing anymore critical information about Drumpf.

    Does Drumpf have a case? And if he does not, will Flame and The Washington Sentinel be able to prove that the lawsuit filed against them was an attempt at a SLAPP?

  7. 7 Show/Hide More Libel and Defamation Playlist Bibliography
    Original Creator: Maggie Miller
    • “Kenneth M. ZERAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICA ONLINE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.” Www.eff.org. Web.

    • Samson, Martin. “Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions.” Kenneth M. Zeran v. America Online, Inc. -. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “Zeran v. America Online.” Zeran v. America Online. Media Law Project, 20 Sept. 2007. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “Summary: Zeran v. America Online.” Summary: Zeran v. America Online. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.

    • “Netlitigation | Case | Zeran v. America On-Line, Inc.” Netlitigation | Case | Zeran v. America On-Line, Inc. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.

    • “Zeran v America Online, Inc. – Global Freedom of Expression.” Global Freedom of Expression. Columbia University. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL and JACQUELINE JORDAN BLUMENTHAL, Plaintiffs, v. MATT DRUDGE and AMERICA ONLINE, INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 97-1968 (PFL) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 992 F. Supp. 44; 1998.” Cyber.law.harvard.edu. Harvard University. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “Blumenthal v. Drudge.” Www.dmlp.org. Digital Media Law Project, 30 May 2008. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “Summary: Blumenthal v. Drudge and AOL.” Summary: Blumenthal v. Drudge and AOL. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/23/0635437.pdf

    • Kane, Michelle J. “Blumenthal v. Drudge.” Scholarship.law.berkely.edu. Jan. 1999. Web.

    • “Blumenthal v. Drudge and American Online, Inc.” Blumenthal v. Drudge. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “Text of the Supreme Court's Opinion in Libel Case Against The New York Times.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 1964. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964).” Justia Law. Justia. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • Persky, Anna Stolley. “50 Years after New York Times v. Sullivan, Do Courts Still Value Journalists' Watchdog Role?” ABA Journal. 01 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.” LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • Ennis, Bruce L. “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).” Scholarship.law.umt.edu. Montana Law Review, 1964. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.

    • UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.” Cdn.ca9.uscourt.gov. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.

    • Miller, Steph. “SLAPP Happy in America.” Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2010. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • Kurdock, Peter, and Mark Goldowitz. “The Need for Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation.” The SiteJabber Blog The Need for Federal AntiSLAPP Legislation Comments. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • Tate, Kathryn W. Digitalcommon.lmu.edu. Law Review at Digital Commons, 2000. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • Spannerfilms. “McLibel: Full Documentary (Official).” YouTube. YouTube, 12 Nov. 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • AHTV: Legacy of [New York Times v. Sullivan].” C-SPAN.org. C-Span, 6 Nov. 2013. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “Protection for Satire and Parody.” Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • O'Keefe, John B. “5 Appalachian Journal of Law 2006.” 5 Appalachian Journal of Law 2006. 2006. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • Von Gerichten, Edward. “26 Journal of College and University Law 1999-2000.” 26 Journal of College and University Law 1999-2000. 1999-2000. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “Avoiding Libel in Satire.” Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton.” Oyez. Oyez. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.” Oyez. Oyez. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “Anti-SLAPP Law: Don't Fall Into This Trap.” YouTube. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “State Anti-SLAPP Laws.” Public Participation Project RSS. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • Thefilmarchives. “Make No Law: A History of Free Speech in America – The Supreme Court & Civil Rights (1991).” YouTube. YouTube, 18 Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “NY Times v. Sullivan (Defamation) – Landmark Cases – Episode # 9.” YouTube. YouTube, 01 Apr. 2016. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “New York Times Company v. Sullivan.” Oyez. Oyez. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

    • “Quizlet.” New York Times v Sullivan Flashcards. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

Close

Playlist Information

April 13, 2016

Author Stats

Maggie Miller

American University

Other Playlists by Maggie Miller

Find Items

Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.

SEARCH
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large