Libel: Gregory V. Gregory Case Analysis

12. New York Times v Sullivan (502)- First off you need to know that libel is the written defamation of character. A person who believes their name and character have been harmed can sue. In this case, the supreme court declared that freedom of the press takes precedence—at least when the defamed individual is a public official.

In common law, defamation in writing is classified as Libel, and oral defamation as Slander” There are four elements of defamation.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, lawful case in which, on March 9, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court governed consistently (9–0) that, for a slander suit to be effective, the complainant must demonstrate that the guilty proclamation was made with " 'genuine perniciousness', with learning that it was false or with neglectful failure of whether it was the truth or not." Specifically, the case included a notice that showed up in The New York Times in March 1960 that sketched out how African Americans had been persecuted and that requested that perusers contribute cash to the battle to end racial isolation in the South.

The majority consisted of Justice Earl Warren, Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, and Arthur J. Goldberg. The majority opinion was made by William J. Brennan, to protect the right to freedom of expression in the First Amendment, the Court rule that the criminal libel law should follow the same standards as civil libel law. True statements regardless of its malicious value will not be considered libel. While statements that are intentionally false or created with a rash disregard for the truth are considered to be libel and can be punished by the law. The restriction was modeled from a prior case, New York Times v. Sullivan, freedom of speech protection should not be exercise separately to a civil libel statute than to a criminal case. The Court concluded that the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute was unlawfully broad and that it breaches the protections of the First Amendment’s free

New Yorker Magazine it states that there must be clear intent to tarnish one’s reputation in order for libel tort law to come into effect. This case was very similar in regards that there was enough evidence that suggest there was intent to hurt the reputation of those mentioned in the articles. Also in the case Anderson v. Liberty Lobby it states the plaintiff must be able to prove that there was in fact damage done to one’s reputation and be able to proof to judges that there was actual malice. As with this case, the court of appeals must take in consideration if the ruling can be made in favor of the plaintiff and that if the summary judgement would go in favor of the plaintiff. The judges want to make sure that they are not wasting time and that there was actual damage done to the plaintiff which can be awarded for punitive

| A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation

Defamation is defined as a statement that injures another party’s reputation. Defamation includes both written statements, libel, and spoken statements, slander. In order to prove defamation 4 things must be shown: a false statement claiming to be true is made, sharing that information either verbally or through written communication with a third party, fault and damages.

In the juvenile court proceedings, Michael filed a motion to suppress the statements on the basis that his request to see his probation officer had been denied, therefore invoking his right against self incrimination. Michael argued that this request was the same as requesting an attorney. The Court

At approximately four twenty- five yesterday a man lost his right arm at Crystal Lake by a terrible boating accident.Gregory L Herwarth, age 81 ,was pulled from the water by his wife and taken to the hospital unconscious as paramedics rushed him to the hospital.

2. In Meyers v. Commonwealth, Meyers argued that the court misused its discretion by allowing his wife to testify. He said that his act of pointing a gun at his wife was a privileged conversation. The court did misuse its discretion based on the law, but the court’s decision to allow his wife to testify was a harmless error.

One of the main purposes of our judicial system is to produce fair results. This way the defendant is not convicted for something that they did not do. Although this is supposed to be the case, our society is set up in a way where the rich people have more of an advantage when it comes down to being provided with a lawyer than the poor. In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, in 1963, the Supreme Court decided that to ensure fair trial, a counsel must be provided for the defendants that cannot afford one. Although the Sixth Amendment only says that someone has the right to a counsel, the purpose for a lawyer is to protect the innocent. This cannot happen if the lawyer does a poor job defending their client. This is why the Supreme Court should set a new precedent stating that everyone is entitled to a high quality defense. A high quality defense would look like someone who presents good arguments that helps back up a side. They are well prepared and knowledgeable about the case. Furthermore, they are well rounded people with good interpretation and speaking skills. Most importantly though, they are good listeners, patient, logical, observance, and open minded about the issue. With that, they have to be able to know how to deal with the issue and come up with alternatives.

The first issue in this case arose from a search of Mr. Bart Brie’s shared studio apartment two City of Silver Lake Police officers conducted after they received consent from Ms. Barbara Brie to do so with no limitations. During that search, the officers seized white pills and money from a shoebox that was found amongst Mr. Brie’s possessions in the apartment. Before opening the shoebox, the officers questioned Ms. Brie about whether it was hers, she responded that the shoebox had come from a pair of her shoes and she had been the one who placed it where it was found. Mr. Brie filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the search, arguing that his mother’s authority to consent to it was ambiguous and that such ambiguity should have rendered

A Supreme Court had held in another trial in 1942 claimed that an ordinary person could do defend himself or herself without legal representation. A court-appointed lawyer was required only if the defendant had mental or physical problems or health related problems that could excuse them the lawyer, if the case was unusually complicated, or the case involved "special circumstances." But, the problem was that none of these exceptions applied to Gideon. The Florida trial court had ruled that his request for a counsel and lawyer was denied. The biggest problem was that Gideon knew his amendments and found that his rights were being violated to not be represented with a lawyer.

Libel simply is "defamation of character by published word", the publishing of falsities to hurt a person's reputation or standing. However, now it is not limited to only printed word as in newspapers or magazines. Slander, which is defined as "defamation of character by spoken word" is now portrayed as a form

By definition defamation is the act of injuring someone’s character or reputation by false statements. Cases of defamation are only considered attacks on if they are made in a vindictive or malicious manner. The person’s name is considered not only personal but proprietary right of reputation. Defamation is synonymous with the words libel and slander in terms of law. Defamation is a term that encompasses both libel and slander. Libel is a term used to describe visual defamation; as in newspaper articles or misleading pictures. Slander describes defamation that you can hear, not see. It is mostly oral statements that tarnish someone’s reputation.