Question 1

A photographer for the campus newspaper and website, the Caper, took an award-winning photo of Professor Bong in front of his house during a drug raid at the residence. The photographer was standing on the sidewalk. Professor Bong has no privacy claim against the paper and website if the Caper publishes the photo without Bong's permission.

Accepted Answer

The photographer was on a public sidewalk, where there is no expectation of privacy. Therefore, Professor Bong has no legal claim to prevent the publication of the photo.

Question 2

Professor Bong [previous question] has no privacy claim against the Caper and website if the newspaper later publishes the same photo to advertise the great photography readers will find regularly in the Caper.

Accepted Answer

Once the photo has been published by the newspaper, it becomes a matter of public record and can be used by the Caper and website for advertising purposes without infringing on Professor Bong's privacy rights.

Question 3

The Supreme Court has ruled that journalists have a privilege to accompany public officials onto private property if the officials have a search warrant.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has not established a general privilege for journalists to accompany public officials onto private property during the execution of a search warrant. Access is typically at the discretion of the officials conducting the operation, and there are no broad legal protections or privileges that grant journalists this right.

Question 4

The Supreme Court has ruled that journalists have a privilege to accompany public officials onto private property even if officials have no search warrant.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has ruled that journalists do not have a special privilege to accompany law enforcement officials during the execution of a search warrant in private homes or properties without the consent of the property owner. This was established in the case Wilson v. Layne (1999).

Question 5

Journalists may commit a trespass if they fly a drone low over private property or an accident scene.

Accepted Answer

Journalists should not fly drones low over private property or accident scenes without permission, as it may be considered a trespass. Trespassing laws vary by jurisdiction but generally involve intentionally entering someone's property without their consent.

Question 6

Plaintiffs claiming they were cast in a false light in an issue of public interest must prove that the publication was made with actual malice.

Accepted Answer

This is based on the "actual malice" standard established in the Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. In cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, plaintiffs must show that the defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth in order to establish a claim for defamation or false light invasion of privacy.

Question 7

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., the human cannonball case, teaches that broadcasters are at risk of commercial appropriation if they broadcast a fragment of an entertainer's act.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., the human...

Question 8

Unauthorized commercial appropriation of someone's identity can occur in advertisements but usually not in news stories.

Accepted Answer

News stories typically report on real people and events, and using someone's identity without their authorization would be a violation of journalistic ethics. Advertisements, on the other hand, may use a celebrity or public figure's identity or likeness without their permission for commercial purposes.

Question 9

Some states recognize a right of publicity for the estates of dead celebrities.

Accepted Answer

Some states have passed laws recognizing a posthumous right of publicity, which allows the estates of deceased celebrities to control the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness. However, the specifics of these laws can vary from state to state.

Question 10

Federal courts have ruled that manufacturers of interactive video games violate the publicity rights of athletes if the virtual athletes in the video games resemble real athletes.

Accepted Answer

This is true. There have been multiple court cases where athletes have sued video game manufacturers for using their likenesses without permission, and the courts have ruled in favor of the athletes, stating that their publicity rights were violated.

Question 11

Employees who smile for the camera have given consent for their photos to be printed in company brochures and advertisements.

Accepted Answer

Smiling for the camera does not necessarily constitute consent for the use of the photos in company brochures and advertisements. Consent should be explicitly given through a consent form or by verbal agreement.

Question 12

Broadcasters must cut the most violent or dangerous filmed conduct because they have a duty to foresee the harm that may result when viewers copy violent and dangerous programming.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Broadcasters must cut the most violent or...

Question 13

In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the Supreme Court ruled that a public figure may successfully sue the media for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the publication is "outrageous."

Accepted Answer

In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the Supreme Court ruled that public figures cannot recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the false statement was made with actual malice - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not.

Question 14

The Rev. Jerry Falwell claimed to be "outraged" by the Campari parody advertisement stating that the pastor had sex with his mother in an outhouse. The Supreme Court ruled that Falwell, a public figure, could collect damages for emotional distress.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court ruled in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell that public figures, such as Falwell, cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by parodies or satires deemed to be outrageous, unless they can prove that the false statements were made with actual malice.

Question 15

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church "intentionally inflicted emotional distress" on mourners at a military funeral by carrying signs proclaiming "God hates fags" on a sidewalk near the funeral, the Supreme Court ruled in Synder v. Phelps.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Members of the Westboro Baptist Church "intentionally...

Question 16

The right to be forgotten is recognized worldwide, including in the United States.

Accepted Answer

The right to be forgotten is not recognized in the United States, although some individual companies or platforms may offer options for individuals to delete their personal data.

Question 17

Although the media are rarely sued successfully for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), recently several courts have allowed private citizens to pursue IIED claims against the media in cases involving irresponsible and offensive commentary or aggressive news coverage.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. While it is difficult for private citizens to successfully sue the media for intentional infliction of emotional distress, there have been cases where courts have allowed such claims based on irresponsible or offensive commentary or news coverage.

Question 18

In 2019, InfoWars founder and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was ordered to pay legal fees to the parent of a 6-year-old school-shooting victim in an IIED suit for repeatedly stating that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.

Accepted Answer

This is true. In August 2019, a Texas judge ordered Alex Jones to pay over $100,000 in legal fees to the parent of a Sandy Hook victim for his statements claiming the shooting was a hoax, which were found to be outrageous and caused emotional distress.

Question 19

The constitutional right of privacy:

Accepted Answer

The constitutional right of privacy has been created through Supreme Court decisions, most notably in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe v. Wade (1973). While the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy, the Supreme Court has found that various provisions imply such a right, including the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, and the Ninth Amendment's affirmation of unenumerated rights.

Question 20

The Supreme Court ruled in Florida Star v. BJF that:

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court ruled in Florida Star v. BJF that information is "lawfully acquired" if obtained from a report issued by a sheriff's office. The ruling did not address the government's interest in protecting the privacy of rape victims, nor did it suggest that rape is not a matter of public importance.

Quiz 5: Privacy