Journal 4

Natalia Schack

Prof. Peter Lindmark

Comm 200

Week 4 Journal 

February, 7 2020

Libel

1. https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/05/22/buzzfeed-libel-trump-dossier-238693 

• In this libel case it explains how Buzzfeed wanted to move a lawsuit over the republican President Donald Trump. Buzzfeed to a controversial step by publishing the drossier piece that started the libel suit in the first place. Trump and the Russians pushed back with the suit because they said “it was one of the most reckless and irresponsible moments in modern 'journalism.'" I think this is a libel case because it is a lawsuit based on a controversial and factless statement that threatens Trump and his relationship to the Russians. 

2. https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/21/3-recent-libel-suit-outcomes/ 

• The article has multiple different types of libel cases the one I am looking at is number three in the list. This article explains that some South Dakota meat producers had been sued. The company sued ABC news for the article they posted about the pink slime that had been in their meats. ABC made people think that their meat was unsafe to eat. The south Dakota company promises that none of that statement was true. I believe this is a libel case because the statement had no proof and ended up being false, which made it libel. 

3. http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/oberlin-college-ordered-to-pay-44.4-million-damages-in-libel-case-brought-by-small-business 

• It was “claimed that the school in which the plaintiff said the school used its powerful''support to ''aid and abet” the libelous material that the small business was racist”. The small business was gibsons bakery, and there was a shoplifting incident. The students said they were targeted because of their race. This started a protest, and the families said that the school was there to support them. I believe this is a libel because it was a false statement that was supposedly said from the small town bakery. 

4. https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/01/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-internet-libel-case/

• This internet case started when a law firm by Hassell after Yelp wrote a libelous review on Hassell firm. By suing Yelp this would hopefully get the post deleted. The supreme court ruled in the company’s favor. Yelp had said that the people who wrote the review have the writing to freely publish on any online platform. In the opposition to petition, the attorney for Yelp argued that hassell tried to persuade the court. This would make it a libel case because it is a written statement about a curtain law firm. 

5. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10183527771703896207&q=New+York+Times+Co.+v.+Sullivan&hl=en&as_sdt=6,35&as_vis=1 

• The document that I found was from a case that started in 1960. It was between the New York Times and Sullivan who was a police commissioner. The NYT’s published an article that advertised the supporters of Martin Luther King Jr. Sullivan took them to court because of the inaccuracies of the advertisement. When they brought it to court Sullivan ended up winning the verdict because it was a violation of the first amendment. I am not the only one who believed that this case was a libel case, and the jury settled it themselves.

Slander

1. https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/surgeon-pays-800000-settles-slander-case/ 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18185168944665484944&q=slander&hl=en&as_sdt=6,35 

• The court appeal that took place in 1992 that had actions of slander. Barnet L. Liberman was the tenant of the building and Leonard Gelstein was the defendant. Mr.Lieberman was taking extra money and electricity from the building. This ended up being a criminal case. This case had a Mr.Gelsteins wife to be there to testify. This case is a slander because it has to do with crime and a statement that will damage the Mr.Liberman tenant. 

2. https://abcnews.go.com/US/steve-wynn-awarded-20-million-slander-suit-joe/story?id=17206604 

• ABC explained how it was hit with $20 million in a slander case. The case was between Steve Wynn(casino owner) and Joe Fransics(journalist). The case was entered as a slander case because Fransic claimed that Wynn threatened his life in an email. Wynn fought back and said that the email did not exist. This is shown to be a slander case because of the possible intent to kill, however, it could be completely false. They didn't know for sure who to believe because it's what he said. 

3. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/arts/defamation-me-too.html 

• This article comes from the Nytimes, and they explain the lawsuit on Harvey Weinstein for sexual assault of a girl named Ashley Judd. However, her advances were too old and late to take him to court. After she had been working with one of his directors he wrote that she was a pain to work with, so she sued him for slander. I believe that this is slander because it has to do with sexual assault and the false statement that came after. 

4. https://apnews.com/4da3369594914c7f9dc03c235904029f 

• Ap News reported that Shakira committed tax fraud. Shakira said that she was always up to date on her taxes. However, the court says that she did not pay 14.5 million euros to the Spanish government. Shakira has to pay multiple taxes based on where she did her work. The tax processor said that she did those things. This would make it a slander case since it is a crime and it has two different people say different things. And if the prosecutor just says this it can ruin Shakira's life. 

5. https://www.thedailybeast.com/kobe-bryants-disturbing-rape-case-the-dna-evidence-the-accusers-story-and-the-half-confession 

• I am sorry for the recent passing of Kobe Bryant in the past couple of weeks. However, he will still always carry the wrongs he has done. Kobe was charged with sexual assault and false imprisonment. But The case never made it to court, after the saucer had been dragged through the mud and didn't want to do it anymore. All she wanted from him after that was an apology. This is a case of slander because it was a criminal case that was true but is said to be the result of false imprisonment.