1 Acusing someone of criminatlity

2 Accusing another of having a contations of offensive disease

3 Attack someones profesional reputation

4 Accusing a person of sexual immorality

Statements that are defamitory because of the context in which they are given

Claim individual has harmed private persons lost jobs or money

1) Defamation: Insulting or hurtful statement

2) Publicatoin: Communicated to third parties, you need another person to hear.

3) Identification: Platif is identifiable either by name or by process of elimination.

4) Fault some has to be found at fault

                3 levels of fault

                    1-negligence: a resonable person would have checked

                                           the facts

                    2-Gross negligence: Intentional failure to check out the

                                                    facts

                    3-Actual Malice: knowingly and intentionaly

                                             communicating harmful information

                                             with wreckless disreguard for the truth

1) Truth: what I said was harmful but true

2) Tarnished Reputation: What I said was false others reputation was already so bad that I couldn't harm any more that he/she has already harmed oneself

3) Privilaged communicatoin: What I said was false and hurt other reputation but I spoke from a posistion of privilege

-1964 vili rights activist place as in NTY times urging support for MLK

-attacked police in montgummery alabama

-LBsulivan files lawsuit against NY times

-Supreme court overturns

-sullivan is attempting to use defemation laws in illigit ways

-1st amend gives citizen the rights to criticize public figures

-minor errors of fact in the adveritsment unitentional

-to win sullican has to prove actual maliace (set out to dilleberatly cause harm

Gertz V Welch

-Man killed by Chicago Cop

-Gertz to sue cops for damages

-Robert Welch (ultra conservitive) fires attack at Gertz

-Welch Makes accusations that Gertz has a criminal background and frontman for communist party

Lower cout rules against Gertz citing Times Sullivan Law and that Welch didn't act with actual mallice

Supreme Court over turns. Gertz is a private citizen dowe not have to prove actual malice, just neglagence

Law applys to public figures not private individuals

Public ficure must prove that their critic acted in actual mallice

Private must prove critic acted with neglagence

Public figures have greater access to media and esier time defending themselves from attack

Private has difficullty telling their side of the story

Trategic Lawsuite against public participation

-advocascy group makies a claim against corporation or agency no actual malice but ezagerated clams made

-Corp has no chance of winning but will tie up in court cause the accuser to go broke in legal fees

-Black family moves into white neighborhood

-a group of boys put burning cross on the lawn

-teenagers charged with violating bias motivated crime ordinance

-court dissmissed claiming law was overbroad

-St Paul appeals to supreme court

US Supreme court overturns

Supreme court will not uphold any laws or codes that attempt to make hate speeh a crime

-Hate speech can't be prosecuted  but other things can be

Trespassing destruction of preperty harasment physical violence....

Misdameiner to place on a public or private property  "a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger alwarm or resentment in others on the basis of race color creed religion or gender.

-Black convicted of violating a statchute made cross burning a felony

-Any such action shall be PRIMA Facie evidence of an intent to intimidate  a person/group

Supreme Court

-Statute blurs line between protected political speech and criminal offense

-statements that are expressiona about political addiliation are protected by 1st ammendment 

UM adopted code that punished any speech that created an intimidating  hostle or demeaning environment

court denies it

Circumstances surrounding the expression play a significant role in determining the social benefits and dangers of expression.

Restrictions on political speech

-in a public place

-in a persons front yard

-on a residential street

-on a busy Hwy

-next to a hospital

-a private mall

-at an airport

Davis V Massachustetts AKA Boston Commons

Davis preaching on the commons without a permit

-City owns title to public properties. City needs to beable to to regulate how the property is used Davis speech was prohibited based on place and time of expression.

Hague refuses permit to union group

Supreme Court rules: streets parks and orther public places must be open for assembly govenrment can reulate no t prohinit regulation must be fair and not discriminate.

Fair Regulations

2 standards

Compatible use rule: is the manner of expressoin compatable with the normal us of the place at a particular time

Perry Township Standard: 3 types of public property some public property is open to publc expression but some not

-Created Free Speech zone 1st ammendment cages.