September 19, 2011
1.THE SITUATION: As we know freedom of the press is given to us in the first amendment, but we follow a code of ethics so that we uphold certain values. Say a reporter writes a story and include legitimate quotations from you and then a third party comes along and changes what you said and post it on a website. A show producer at a huge station researches the article and finds out that the people and the story is real and assumes that this third parties article is real. The show picks up the “fake” article and starts accusing you of being a insensitive bastard and tells everyone and America you are a horrible person.
Imagine if that happened a BGSU and all of your classmates turned on you for something you didn’t say…what would you do would you sue for libel?
2. Assistant Principal at Lewiston Middle School Leon Levesque suspended a child from school for placing a piece of ham on a group of Ethiopian Muslim children’s lunch table. The event reminded the children of an earlier event where a pigs head was rolled in their mosque during prayer. The following week Bonnie Washuk, a reporter contacted Levesque for an interview in the Lewiston Sun Journal. She included quotes from both Levesque and Stephen Wessler, the director of the Center for Prevention of Hate Violence. Nicholas Plagman uploaded the article on a website that allows people to post their own news. He drastically changed that quotes in the article that made Levesque seem insensitive and evil. The distorted article was picked up by FOX and Friends and aired over and over saying the distorted quotes. These defamatory comments harmed Levesque’s character. He sued the host of the show Steve Doocy, and Brian Kilmeade because he claims they defamed him during a show on the Fox News Channel. Levesque sued for 4 counts of libel/ defamation and the courts only granted him two because there was no proof of actual malice.
Example:
Washuk quoted Levesque as describing the offending student’s conduct as “a hate incident” and acknowledging, “We’ve got some work to do to turn this around and bring the school community back together . . . All our students should feel welcome and safe in our schools.”
Jacked version:
“HAM IS NOT A TOY.
Wouldn’t you sue Plagman for recreating the article not the FOX
who ran the story without knowing it was fake?
Do you think that there was any actual malice in this case?
Do you think the judges were fair in only granting him two of his cases?
4 thoughts on “Discussion Case”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 21st, 2011 at 3:38 pm
In response to question 2 and 3- I think the judges were fair in only granting Levesque two of his cases. I think that he is lucky to even have been granted that much, considering he is an assistant principal at a middle school. Not to look down on his job’s position, but he is an involuntary public figure/ official in this case. He obviously did not choose fame on his own choosing, and could not control how the “jacked” version changed his words.
I think there was a hint of actual malice in this case, not by the original reporter, but by the Nicholas Plagman. He recklessly and deliberately changed the words Levesque said when he posted the article on a website. From the judges’ ruling,however, I can see why they did not have enough malice to grant him all four cases. It was most likely that his cases did not fit each of the six elements of a Plantiff’s libel case. Anyone can repost an article and change a couple words on the internet. It’s clearly one of the downfalls of people being able to post whatever they want on the Web.
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:44 am
1. I would try to sue both, as Plagman was irresponsible in reporting the information and from what it sounds like could have had actual malice to report something like that. I could understand though that Fox might not have had any intentional actual malice. They were mainly neglectful in their reporting. However, the fact that their information came from Plagman who did not seem like the most reliable source could show that Fox had actual malice for not checking the facts and trusting an unreliable source.
2. I’m not sure there’s enough information here to make that judgement. I would say that Fox published a story quickly that they knew would get some attention. They were neglectful by publishing it without checking the facts themselves. To change the meaning of someone’s quotes also sounds like negligence in reporting and actual malice. From the information here, I would say Plagman did have actual malice. Plagman seemed to have a reckless disregard for the truth with how different the meaning of the quotes were.
3. Although Fox wasn’t directly involved with creating the false information, they caused the major damage to Levesque’s reputation by publishing it to a larger audience. They also took the information from a site that seemed less than reliable, as it was a place where people could post their own news as citizen journalists. For this reason, the extreme lack of fact checking makes it seem like Fox also had reckless disregard for the truth, meaning they had actual malice too. Although there are six elements that have to be proved by the plaintiff, I think each of these elements were part of this case in what Plagman and Fox did. They published information as fact even though it was false, identified Levesque and damaged his reputation.
September 28th, 2011 at 9:44 am
I think there definitely was actual malice in this case. The quotes were changed to, as you put it, make “Levesque seem insensitive and evil.” In my mind, if quotes are changed at all to convey any sort of message unintended by the speaker, there’s actual malice involved.
October 2nd, 2011 at 10:29 pm
I would absolutely sue FOX for running the story without doing their research to check the reliablity of the story. I don’t believe there was actual malice in this case because for did not know that the information was wrong, which is just as bad. The judge i fell gave a fair desicion by awarding to counts of libel/ defamation.