Communication_Law

Turner v. Barkfelt/Omaha World-Herald In examining the dispute between the Omaha World-Herald and James Turner there are many precedent cases that have taken place and laws involving similar matter to this case, both will play a big role on both sides when a final decision does come around. First looking at the side of the Omaha World-Herald and that of writer Lee Barkfelt in which much of the suit is towards. The stories that Mr. Barkfelt did print are being tried for libel, listed by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as “a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression.” The information that Barkfelt has listed has come out to be true at this point, but looking at the case of New York Times v. Sullivan 1963, the Times printed a story involving L.B. Sullivan the City Commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, and how he had attempted to destroy Martin Luther King’s attempt to integrate public facilities, and get blacks to favor his vote in an upcoming election. Sullivan was able to win in Alabama court, but the Times appealed and the case went to the Supreme Court in which they overturned the ruling stating that the First Amendment protection is not dependant on the truth. Since he (Sullivan) was a public figure the court said they would inhibit the decision if he could prove actual malice which much like libel is defined by lectlaw.com as “publication of defamatory material (with knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Actual malice was established by this case, so now it has to be met before the press reports about public officials or public figures, which brings to the point that James Turner himself wasn’t a “public figure” until the stories about him were released, basically no malice can be proven due to that fact. A case that the Herald and Barkfelt do have to be aware of is Curtis Publishing Co v. Butts 1963, in which an article was published about Georgia football coach Wallace Butts and Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant had a phone conversation about fixing their game in Alabama’s favor. The conversation was overheard by an insurance salesman George Burnett. Butts won the libel case, and right after the NY Times v. Sullivan ruling, Curtis moved for a new trial. It was rejected by the trial judge, and later rejected by the appeals judge for not being brought up during the original trial. Another case that is later, but follows a similar path is Ollman v. Evans 1984. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak are both syndicated columnists and they wrote an article about Bertell Ollman who at the time was a professor of political science at New York University. Ollman had accepted a job as the head of the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. The story written was about how Ollman had Marxist beliefs and that he was preaching it to the students. At the lower courts Evans and Novak were protected by their first amendment rights. The case then further branches to another precedent case Gertz v. Robert Welch, where the Supreme Court established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The constant protection of the first amendment rights, and failure to prove malice against Evans and Novak led to a loss for Ollman at the Supreme Court level. Libel is a very tough thing to get to stand at the Supreme Court level. Barkfelt stands a lot better of a case in libel as Turner is not considered a public figure, and he is continued to be protected by his First Amendment rights in freedom of speech, and also freedom of press. There is one point though that Barkfelt printed a story reporting that Nebraska was in violation due to Turner’s ACT scores being too low for Nebraska, which is later proven to be false which could be a point that leads to getting Barkfelt for libel. Turner has also filed a suit of invasion of privacy, with his ACT scores being obtained illegally, and also pictures being taken of him through a telephoto lens. Invasion of privacy is defined by uslegal.com as “the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit against the person or entity that intruded.” Both sides now have a good fight as Turner was at his home in “private”, but in the same sense the reporter for the Herald who took the pictures used a telephoto lens meaning long distance, and was also not on the property that Turner was on making the photos public. In the case of Jennifer Aniston v. Peter Brandt 2005, photos of Aniston were taken of her semi-nude on her property. Brandt’s argument was that he was over 300 yards away using a telephoto lens. Much like the Herald reporter Brandt was not on private property when the photos were taken. In the end Aniston dropped the charges as long as Brandt agreed to not publish the photos. The ACT scores is pretty serious especially when you look at the FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act). FERPA “is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records.” The law goes on to further say that “Generally schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student’s education record.” In the ways listed that the record should be released in no way is the press involved, so the fact that grades were obtained illegally does invade the privacy of Turner, and even after those stories about how Turner’s ACT scores were too low for the University of Nebraska, the University had given Turner a probationary status pending his final high school grades, which was found that the practice falls under legal NCAA guidelines. Final thoughts on the case would be that seeing all the other cases and how Turner is not a public figure it’s going to be difficult to win the libel suit that he filed. It’s also going to be difficult to prove invasion of privacy against the reporter’s photograph’s since he himself was not on Turner’s property. The grades however are going to be a loss for the Herald and Barkfelt, it’s never good when you have obtained grades illegally and report a violation of Nebraska when there wasn’t one. This could be the one point to prove libel, but once again I think Barkfelt will be protected by the first amendment and the precedent cases. Columbia University Press, “New York Times Company v. Sullivan”, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2007, http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0835522.html OYEZ, “Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts”, U.S. Supreme Court Media, 2010, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_37 OpenJurist, “750 F. 2nd 970-Ollman v. Evans”, openjurist.org, 2010, http://openjurist.org/750/f2d/970/ollman-v-evans The ‘Lectric Law Library, “Legal definition of malice, actual”, The ‘Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon, 1995-2010, http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m006.htm USlegal, “Invasion of Privacy Law & Legal Definition”, USlegal.com, 2001-2010, http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invasion-of-privacy/ Wolf, Buck, “Photographer: Topless Aniston ‘Exposed Herself’”, ABCnews.com, Dec. 6th 2005, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story'id=1379924&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 U.S. Department of Education, “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)”, ED.gov, 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/print/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html