16 Aug Must post first.Please watch this review of New York Times v

Must post first.Please watch this review of New York Times v. Sullivan produced by the Newseum:Required Response:Why does the First Amendment creep into a private cause of action such as a defamation lawsuit (chapter 4) or privacy (chap 5)? What is the governmental interest here? (Hint: one seminal SCOTUS case)Think about this carefullty–The First Amendment literally jacks up the entire sequence of a private tort action. So here is a scenario–you are a media outlet (anyone from CNN to Buzzfeed, Gawker, Tumblr, Baltimore Sun, Cosmopolitan, Essence, Twitter, CBS etc) or an individual journalist, website producer, writer, artist, musician, photographer/videographer, radio DJ/host etc. You piss someone off and they sue for defamation. Assuming they can make out the Prima Facie case (in other words, meet their burden of production by showing the elements of the tort like falsity, publication/re-pub, damages etc.), then you are in deep do-do. the actual burden of proof, which can be very tough admittedly,in terms of evidence but it can be done to convince a jury, is that it is 51% likely that you either made up the false information OR you negligently published it (e.g. a reasonably prudent person would have check and not run the story).Here’s where it gets complicated, thanks to the First Amendment…and where it now helps that you are a media outlet etc…and more so, that the plaintiff is a public official…or a public figure (celebrity, ‘niche,’ limited purpose, involved in an issue of public concern or important, voluntarily injected themselves into this). As said, ordinarily you might be toast. But the First Amendment allows you to SHIFT the burden BACK to the plaintiff–you present some bit of evidence that this person is a public figure. If the judge in the suit accepts this, than the PLAINTIFF is in big trouble, because now they must show they aren’t a public figure. If they can’t, now the burden of proof gets tougher for them, because instead showing mere negligence, they must show Actual Malice.’Malice’ as in mean? No. What this translates to is a ‘reckless disregard’ for the truth. Not just that you were negligent, but that you plain didn’t care despite glaring holes in the story, etc. to the point a judge or jury can second guess your editorial decisions. That is very, very hard to prove, and means even if you didn’t run down every lead, check every fact, you can still win the suit against you. Therefore, its hard for public figures, be they celebrities, the Duck Dynasty people, George Zimmerman, etc. to really nail the press for defamation. Indeed, even if its a close case, most are settled before a verdict. So the SCOTUS has now turned a private tort into a public matter, essentially…Get it?You must start a thread before you can read and reply to other threadsRespond: Defamation Litigation Flow Chart (For Your Situational Awareness only)Must post first.Consider this four-part chart before and after you’ve read this week’s materials. This chart might help you organize your thought and understand the concepts as a whole. In the law it’s easy to get lost just looking at the trees (cases, statutes) without seeing the whole forest.Note, in the law the pi symbol π = plaintiff, the delta symbol Δ = defendant. Try to think of the possibilities as you have media and non-media plaintiffs and defendants, public figures as plaintiffs or private regular folks, “fair comment/opinion” or ‘issues of public concern.’ It all muddies the water, it all makes things very confusing. But if you look at it as a flow, it’s easier to conceptualize. As we examine media law and privacy, likewise it will seem confusing (unless you work for Harvey Levin at TMZ, or US Weekly and are showing pics of Suri Cruise at her summer camp lol) but there is a flow.