How Libel and Slander is Handled in PR

   Why I decided to write this blog post:

        Last week I went on a family vacation to Pensacola Florida. On the last day, we visited my older brother Brandon's restaurant that he had just opened up in Perdito on Memorial day. He explained to us that most of the publicity his operation has received has been from positive Google reviews totaling to a 4.6-star rating. There was one lady however who ordered over $100 in food and never picked it up. She left a one-star review and captioned it "Worst pizza I ever put in my mouth". This interested me, and so I decided to look up some reviews from the place I work. Most were reasonable but there was one in particular that stood out where this person posted a picture of one of our sushi rolls that looked like it sat in her fridge for a month commenting that she was served it rancid. 

        The point of this story is that there are instances in which a case can be made where intentional falsehoods/inaccuracies have been publicized by individuals (such as consumers or even competition) to harm a firm's reputation. This is wrong and unjustified because it is deceitful and deceptive by nature. Even from a customer standpoint, hearing about exaggerated fabrications in which fact is separatable from feeling  

could sway you away from a good or service that you would have otherwise enjoyed.

This blog post will cover and respond to these three related questions: 

At what burden would a company or corporation file for a libel or slander lawsuit?

What criteria or degree of burden must be satisfied in order for a business to win compensation for libel and slander cases (compared to traditional ones)?

How does conflict of interest influence these judiciary outcomes?

My response:

         I believe that one thing that is important to highlight in question #1 is that individuals who own or work for a business must come to the decision whether to file for a traditional defamation lawsuit (in which the burden is being alleged on an individual's character) or rather a business disparagement claim/trade libel (where harm is being alleged to a business reputation causing economic disinterest. These burdens must fall under one or several of the following damage classifications: Actual, Special, General, Nomial, and or Punitive. Actual and Special damages can sometimes be categorized together. They seek reimbursements for profit or revenue loss, as well as a drop in stock value. General damages are often associated with non-tangible injuries (to reputation) that caused or led to monetary loss. Nominal damages are when defamation can not be proven but the plaintiff's legal rights were violated. Finally, punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant's behavior often in the case of actual malice and reckless disregard. 

        Journalism and News companies are commonly most associated with business defamation lawsuits because they seek financial compensation for exercising their first amendment rights, which in some cases tests legal boundaries. From what we can understand from high-profile cases such as with the Daily Mail, business defamation lawsuits are difficult for plaintiffs to win because a higher burden of proof is required as opposed to traditional defamation lawsuits. This gets even more complicated when businesses sue other businesses for defamation because people of interest must be identified that made libelous or slanderous statements to a third party.

        To address question #3, conflict of interest typically happens in the workplace. An example of this was around 2017 when Allstate fired 4 of their employees and made false allegations containing sensitive information in their memos which had been sent to hundreds of their coworkers. Illinois courts verdict awarded the plants $27.1 million in damages. Defamation following workplace termination includes but is not limited to sexual misconduct and wrongful hire/fire practices. Some final thoughts that I would like to add are that it is important for both employers and employees to tread lightly and think about the scope of what they can say when representing a business, whether it is a manager addressing the state of a workplace or an employee who was unsatisfied about their employment and left on bad terms. Thank you for reading and I hope that you learned something new about Defamation and how it pertains to business.

-"Meyham" from Allstate commercials

    

FOIA, The Privacy Act and Sunshine Laws

    FOIA is an acronym that stands for the Freedom of Information act. It requires government organizations to disclose public records for reasonable and specific requests. Complimentary to FOIA is The Privacy Act of 1974 which prevents the release of individuals' sensitive information to others.   In a way, you can say that the Privacy Act was passed to narrow the scope or rather reach of FOIA. FOIA was approved by LBJ and passed by the Supreme Court under the rationale that democracy can not function in an ignorant society. It is also intended as a deterrent to hold immoral individuals accountable. As for the Privacy Act, it was signed by President Ford into law to restore faith in the institution through transparency after the Nixon Administration. 

    On a somewhat related note, the exchange and sharing of information became common practice around the 70s, even in criminal investigation and law enforcement due to the introduction of databases. 🌞Sunshine laws🌞 are state legislation that outline information practices. The Rule about state laws is that you can make them "Stricter per say" than federal laws. As we can aprehend from the module videos it can still be difficult to have FOIA requests filled on a case basis. Sometimes this can be for legitimate, valid reasons and others are a failure of the system. Sunshine laws may attribute to this but I believe that other factors might be that it can be difficult to interpret information laws and there could also be a lack of definition of it. As I mentioned Sunshine laws can easily subvert FOIA, but we must also consider what incrimidation is intentionally left off government records as a result of FOIA's existane to begin with.

Module 1 - First Amendment and Censorship

First Amendment and Censorship

Background Information and summary:

Freedoms outlined in the First Amendment:

Exceptions to the First Amendment:

Hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment.

Schenck v. the United States is the case in which established the Clear and Present Danger Test. Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were convicted of violating the Espionage Act by opposing the draft during WWI. Parameters of speech are often limited during wartime. This is why the Court found them guilty.  Related cases in which protested the Espionage Act include Debs V. US and Frohwerk V. US.

The Clear and Present Danger test does not always hold up.

 Brandenburg V. Ohio was a president case in which Clarence Bandonburg organized a Ku Klux Klan rally making anti-black and anti-Semitism remarks. He was found guilty under Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism law however this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court issuing a news speech test for lawless action.

Other Exceptions to the First Amendment Include:

Blackmail:

Sekhar V. US

Child Pornography: 

Defaimation: 

New York Times V. Sulivan was a landmark case in which a news outlet posted false statements about L.B Sulivan. The Court ruled that it is much more difficult for famous people and public officials to prove defamation because in order to do so they need to prove actual malice. It is important to understand that Libal is written Defamation while Slander is spoken.

Fighting Words: 

Chaplinsky V. New Hampshire

Perjury: 

McMillan V. Pennsylvania

Obscenity: 

Miller V. California established the Miller test for obscenity with a variety of criteria. Obscene material must not be depicted as offensive and also have an educational or scientific purpose.

True Threats: 

Watts V. US and Virginia V. Black

Government Agencies:

Government entities often monitor, regulate and restrict free speech

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is the biggest organization that statutes the content of Broadcast, Cable, Radio, and Electronic Media. They were established by the Communications Act of 1934. 

 Family Guy FCC song

The Patriot Act:

This was President Bush's Executive order in response to the September 11 attacks to allow for the FBI and NSA to secretly conduct and wiretap in order to obtain evidence without providing probable cause. Although the patriot act may be classified by some as a privacy matter, it very well may violate 6 of 10 original bill of rights.

My Thoughts on the First Amendment and Censorship:

    I believe that there has been a surplus of censorship and legislation regarding to the First Amendment in response to how accessible information is today. Apart from the ongoing discussion of social media, parents have become more concerned with what books can, cannot, should, and should not be available in school libraries depending on their beliefs. We often find ourselves looking to history for answers. I for one agree with many of these case decisions and presidents but there are others that I do not. The reason why there is so much debate about free speech and censorship is that it is part of the price of having free speech in the first place. If we were deprived of our expressions then there would be no opportunities to have forums and outlets for our discussions that help us change the way we think and better understand each other.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/10

https://www.fcc.gov/

https://apnews.com/hub/patriot-act