Only $2.99/month

Terms in this set (10)

1. Haynes v. Alfred: (D) published a book chronicling the life of Ruby's troubled marriage to (P). After their divorce, (P) turned his life around and nobody knew of his past.
--> Court:
-The story of black migration is of legitimate public interest. Offensiveness and newsworthiness are related--there are no details here that disclose any intimate personal facts.
-Changing names would turn it into a "fiction"--reporting the true facts about real people is the point in writing history.
2. Gilbert v. Medical Economics Co.: (D) published an article describing (P)'s malpractice as a doctor and included (P)'s name, picture, marital problems, and psychiatric problems.
--> Court:
-The truthful representations are relevant to a newsworthy topic b/c they strengthen the impact and credibility of the article. There's a rational inference that (P)'s personal problems were the underlying cause of the malpractice.
3. Howard v. Des Moines: (D) identified victims of involuntary sterilization in a report about abuses by mental institutions.
--> Court: The identities were necessarily disclosed b/c they were needed to "strengthen the accuracy of the public perception of the merits of the controversy".
4. Pasadena Star v. Superior Court: (D) published two articles about a newborn baby being abandoned at the hospital. The latter article named both the mother and then man who dropped the baby off.
--> Court:
-A rule that would require publishers to withhold names of parties in embarrassing situations would overhaul journalism. It would only allow public figures to be named in those situations.
-The articles were newsworthy--(P) wasn't an involuntary ( like Times-Mirro), her own voluntary and extraordinary acts created the event.