Chapter 5 -Libel: Defenses and Privileges

Topic Overview: 

Defamation concerns the statements that publications, broadcasts, and journalists make that injure someone else's reputation. Written defamation is considered libel and spoken defamation is slander. However, defamation is a tricky thing to handle in court and sue for because of individuals First Amendment rights. The First Amendment grants free speech and encourages political and social disagreement for the well functioning of democracy. Further, each state can have their own laws for defamation.

Mostly, libel claims must cause actual harm - hurt a persons reputation. There are also distinguishing factors when it comes to public figures vs. regular individuals. If a publication or journalist knew the information was false or had serious doubts about what was true then libel can be proven.

Defining Key Terms:

fair report privilege: A privilege claimed by journalists who report events on the basis of official records. The report must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the records; this is the condition that sometimes leads to this privilege being called "conditional privilege."

absolute privilege: A complete exemption from liability for the speaking or publishing of defamatory words of and concerning another because the statement was made within the performance of duty such as in judicial or political contexts.

conditional (or qualified) privilege: An exemption from liability for repeating defamatory words of an concerning another because the original statement was made within the performance of duty such as in judicial or political contexts; usually claimed by journalists who report statements made in absolutely privileged situations; this privilege is conditional (or qualified) on the premise that the reporting is fair and accurate.

fair comment and criticism: A common law privilege that protects critics from lawsuits brought by individuals in the public eye.

innocent construction: Allegedly libelous words that are capable of being interpreted, or construed, to have an innocent meaning are not libelous, so long as that interpretation is a reasonable one.

neutral reportage: In libel law, a defense accepted in some jurisdictions that says that when an accusation is made by a responsible and prominent organization, reporting that accusation is protected by the First Amendment even when it turns out the accusation was false and libelous.

single-publication rule: A rule that limits libel victims to only one cause of action even with multiple publications of the libel, common in mass media and on websites.

libel-proof plaintiff: A plaintiff whose reputation is deemed to be so damaged already that additional false statements of and concerning him or her cannot cause further harm.

summary judgement:  a judge promptly decides certain points of a case and grants the motion to dismiss the case.

retraction statutes: In libel law, state laws that limit the damages a plaintiff may receive if the defendant had issued a retraction of the material at issue. Retraction statutes are meant to discourage the punishment of any good-faith effort of admitting a mistake.

Important Cases:

Ollman v. Evans (1984)- Defamation case out of the publication of a column by Rowland Evans. Question is whether the defamatory statements in the column are constitutionally protected expressions of opinions, or actionable assertions of fact. Concluded that the statements are entitled to absolute protection of the First Amendment. Regarding the reputation of an individual.

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990)- Michael Milkovich, a wrestling coach, testified at a hearing concerning a physical altercation at a recent wrestling meet. A journalist published an article in the local newspaper saying that anyone in their heart knows that Milkovich lied at the hearing. The coach sued the journalist and the paper for defamation, alleging that the article caused him perjury, damaged his occupation, and constituted libel. The court ruled in favor of the paper. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed.

Relevant Doctrine:

1. Fair Report Privilege:
1) The information must be obtained from a record or proceeding recognized as "official."
2) The news report must fairly and accurately reflect what is in the public record or what was said during the official proceeding.
3) The source of the statement should be clearly noted in the news report.
4) Not all states recognize the fair report privilege.

2. Ollman Test:
1. Is the statement verifiable - objectively capable of proof or disproof? In other words, can the statement be proved either true or false? Opinion is indirectly linked to the falsity/truth element of libel. That is, if a statement cannot be proved true or false, then it may satisfy the legal definition of an expression of opinion.

2. What is the common usage or meaning of the words?

3. What is the journalistic context in which the statement occurs? This element is especially important for the media. It provides added weight for an opinion defense when the material in question appears in a part of a publication traditionally reserved for opinions - for example op-ed pages, personal columns, or a blog. The entire column must be considered as a whole. The language of the entire column may signal that a specific statement, standing alone, which would appear to be factual, is in fact an expression of opinion.

4. What is the broader social context into which the statement fits? For example, was the statement at issue made within a context or in a place where the expression of opinions is not only common but expected? Or was it made within a context in which opinion is not commonplace and, instead, statements are presumed to be statements of facts?

3. Neutral Reportage:
The First Amendment is a defense in a libel case if the following apply:

• The story is newsworthy and related to a public controversy.
• The accusation is made by a responsible person or group. 
• The charge is about a public official, public figure or public organization.
• The story is accurate, containing denials or other views.
• The reporting is neutral. 

4. The Wire Service Defense

1. The defendant received material containing the defamatory statements from a reputable news-gathering agency. 

2. The defendant did not know the story was false. 

3. Nothing on the face of the story reasonably could have alerted the defendant that is may have been incorrect.

4. The original wire service story was republished without substantial change. 

5. Determining Jurisdiction: 

1. Whether the defendant purposefully conducted activities in the state

2. Whether the plaintiff's claim arises out of the defendants activities there

3. Whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable. 

6. Section 230 Immunity:

Does not apply:

*The ISP/Website is a content distributor and not a content creator.

*The ISP/Website did not interact directly with the content

Immunity Applies When:

*ISP/Websites correct, edit, add or remove content - so long as they don't substantially alter the meaning of content. 

*ISP/Websites solicit or encourage users to submit content

*ISP/Websites pay a third party to create or submit content

*ISP/Websites provide forms or drop downs to facilitate content submission by users - so long as the forms and drop downs are neutral. 

7. Anti-SLAPP Protection:

In libel law, it is used not as a shield against threatened harms or as a means of correcting them, but as a weapon to prevent speech from occurring in the first place.

- SLAPPS are meant to silence critics
- SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation): a lawsuit whose purpose is to harass critics into silence, often to suppress those critics' F.A. rights. 
- Success on the Merits: the phrase is a term that courts use to describe one factor when evaluating whether to grant a preliminary injunction, which is central to an anti-SLAPP motion. The party that wants the injection "has to be able to convince the court, on a preliminary basis - meaning before the record is fully developed - that one of the reasons it is entitled to temporary relief is that it will probably win the case anyway." 

My Questions/Concerns:
1. When are opinions constitutionally protected?
2. How is someone notified that they are guilty/being sued for libel?

Chapter 4-Libel and Emotional Distress: The Plaintiff's Case

Topic Overview:

Libel laws aim to balance the right of free speech against the protection for an individual's reputation from an unjustified attack. Rumors, innuendo, gossip, and language that exposes a person to hatred, shame, disgrace, or ridicule, as well as injures their reputation, or injures a person in their occupation all constitutes libel. Libel language is published, or in other words, written or communicated to someone other than the person being 'libeled.'

In today's world where internet and social media are engrained in our lives, libel is even more difficult to regulate. However, libel law and defamation lawsuits have prevailed showing their importance to society. John Oliver was recently sued for defamation, and this suit gave me insight into the importance of freedom of speech and the value of protecting private and public individuals.

Defining Key Terms:

libel: "little book." The legal term derives from the practice in Ancient Rome of publishing little books or booklets that one Roman used to defame another. The history of valuing and protecting reputation is centuries old. (written defamation)

damages: Monetary compensation that may be recovered in court by any person who has suffered loss or injury. Damages may be compensatory for actual loss or punitive as punishment for outrageous conduct.

Sedition Act of 1798: Federal legislation under which anyone "opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or the President of the United States" could be imprisoned for up to two years. The act also made it illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything that criticized the president or Congress. The act expired in 1801 and ultimately was seen as a direct violation of the First Amendment.

SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation): a lawsuit whose purpose is to harass critics into silence, often supress those critics' First Amendment rights.

Communications Decency Act (CDA): The part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that largely attempted to regulate internet content. The CDA was successfully challenged in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997).

libel per se: A statement whose injurious nature is apparent and requires no further proof.

libel per quod: A statement whose injurious nature requires proof.

actual malice: In libel law, a statement made knowing it is false or with reckelss disregard for its truth.

deposition: Testimony by a witness conducted outside a courtroom and intended to be used in preparation for trial.

public figure: In libel law, a plaintiff who is in the public spotlight, usually voluntarily, and must prove the defendant acted with actual malice in order to win damages.

all-purpose public figure: In libel law, a person who occupies a position of such pervasive power and influence as to be deemed a public figure for all purposes. Public figure libel plaintiffs are required to prove actual malice.

limited-purpose public figure: In libel law, those plaintiffs who have attained public figure status within a narrow set of circumstances by thrusting themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved; this kind of public figure is more common than the all-purpose public figure.

bootstrapping: In libel law, the forbidden practice of a defendant claiming that the plaintiff is a public figure solely on the basis of the statement that is the reason for the lawsuit.

involuntary public figure:  In libel law, a person who does not necessarily thrust himself or herself into public controversies voluntarily but is drawn into a given issue.

private figure: In libel law, a plaintiff who cannot be categorized as either a public figure or a public official. Generally, in order to recover damages, a private figure is required to prove not actual malice but merely negligence on the part of the defendant.

negligence: Generally, the failure to exercise reasonable or ordinary care. In libel law, negligence is usally the minimum level of fault a plaintiff must prove in order to receive damages.

strict liability: A defendant is automatically responsible for damages. Fault (negligence or actual malice) is not required to cover actual malice.

emotional distress: Serious mental anguish.

intentional infliction of emotional distress: Extreme and outrageous intentional or reckless conduct causing plaintiffs seere emotional harm; public offical and public figure plaintiff must show actual malice on the defendant's part.

negligent infliction of emotional distress: Careless breach of a duty that causes the plaintiff severe emotional harm.

reckless: Word used to describe actions taken with no consideration of the legal harms that might result.

Important Cases:

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)- Concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times alleging the arrest of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote.

L.B. Sullivan one of three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama filed libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who endorsed the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally.

Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad had factual error. Sullivan won $500,000.

The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones about the conduct of public officials except when statement are made with actual malice (reckless disregard).

Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell (1988)- Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister who was an active commentator on politics and public affairs, sued Hustler Magazine Inc, and its petitioner Larry Flynt to recover damages for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Falwell won the verdict on the emotional distress claim, and was awarded $150,000. Hustler Magazine appealed the case, with the question "Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress?"

The Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice."

Relevant Doctrine: 
1. The Plaintiff's Libel Case: Libel plaintiffs must show that the defendant is at fault for publishing the defamatory material. The level of fault that must be proved varies according to the plaintiff's status.

1. A statement of fact
2. That is published
2. That is of an concerning the plaintiff
4. That is defamatory
5. That is false
6. That causes damage or harm and
7. For which the defendant is at fault.

2. Defamation: Distinguishing defamatory from non-defamatory statements is more art than science. Within various contexts, the following definitions of "defamatory" have been offered

• Words or images that expose another person to hatred, contempt or ridicule. 
• Words or images that tend to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him or her in the estimation of the community or deter third persons form associating or dealing with him or her. 
• Words or images that subject a person to the loss of goodwill or confidence from others.
• Words or images that subject a person to scorn or ridicule. 
• Words or images that tend to expose a person to hatred, contempt or aversion, or tend to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of him or her in the minds of a substantial number in the community. 
• Words or images that tend to prejudice someone in the eyes of a substantial and respectable minority of the community. 

3. Actual Malice: Knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. 

4. Reckless Disregard: 1) Urgency of the story - Is there time to check the information? 2) Source Reliability - Is the source trustworthy? 3) Story believability - Is further examination necessary? 

5.  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: 

Defendants intentional or reckless conduct 

• Was extreme and outrageous -beyond the bounds of decency tolerated in civilized society. 
• Involved actual malice, if plaintiff is a public official or public figure, and
• Caused the plaintiff's severe emotional distress. 

6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress:

• The defendant had a duty to use due care
• Negligently breached that duty
• Causing the plaintiff's severe emotional distress, and
• The breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's emotional distress. 

My Questions/Concerns: 

1. Is there a time constraint on pursuing libel suits?

Chapter 3- Speech Distinctions: Dangers, Fights, Threats, Educational Needs and Other Harms

Topic Overview:

The First Amendment is a law many American's surely take for granted. But, American's become most aware of their speech when it is prohibited by the law. Understandably, empowering a Court to weigh speech that goes against all American's best interests is necessary. Depending on the circumstance, speech can be dangerous and present defined harm to an individual or groups of people.

Therefore, it is necessary to look at the ways speech can be a danger, can inflict fights or threats, or the ways it is needed to meet educational needs. In our time and day, this means that on public college campuses around the country, we must take into consideration and reflect on the ways that limiting people's ability to speak on campus' because of their differing views goes directly against the First Amendment. I think it is notable when campus' explain the type of community they would like to create and then when confronted with hate speech, explaining how this wording is inconsistent with the direction they are aspiring to go.

Defining Key Terms:

as applied: a phrase referring to interpretation of a statute on the basis of actual effects on the parties in the present case.

USA PATRIOT Act:  The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. The act gave law enforcement agencies greater authority to combat terrorism.

chilling effect: The discouragement of a constitutional right, especially free speech, by any government practice that create uncertainty about the proper exercise of that right.

clear and present danger: Doctrine establishing that restrictions on First Amendment rights will be upheld if they are necessary to prevent an extremely serious and imminent harm.

Espionage Act (1917): one of several federal laws enacted to unify the nation behind the war effort.

incorporation doctrine: the Fourteenth Amendment concept that most of the Bill of Rights applies equally to the states.

tort: a private, or civil, wrong for which a court can provide remedy in the form of damages.

negligence: Generally, the failure to exercise reasonable or ordinary care.

proximate cause: Determining whether it is reasonable to conclude the defendant's actions led to the plaintiff's injury.

fighting words: Words not protected by the First Amendment because they cause immediate harm or illegal acts.

hate speech: A category of speech that includes name-calling and pointed criticism that demeans others on the basis of race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, disability, intellect or the like.

Speech loses constitutional protection when the speaker intends to provoke violence or incite unrest to a targeted group or individual.

underinclusive: A First Amendment doctrine that disfavors narrow laws that target a subset of a recognized category for a discriminatory treatment.

viewpoint-based discrimination: Government censorship or punishment of expression based on the ideas or attitudes expressed. Courts will apply a strict scrutiny test to determine whether the government acted constitutionally (banning racist, but not sexist or homophobic, for example).

true threat: Speech directed toward one or more specific individuals with the intent of causing listeners to fear for their safety.

Important Cases:

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community (1969)- District Court recognized that the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Unless student expression materially or substantially disrupts the schools educational activities, school administrators lack the authority to regulate speech.

Elonis v. United States (2015)- Federal law makes it a crime to transmit interstate commerce "any communication containing any threat to injure the person of another."

Question before the Supreme Court was when Internet posts constitute true threats punishable by law.

Relevant Doctrine: 

1. Fighting Words: Words not protected by the first Amendment because they cause immediate harm or illegal acts.

The First Amendment protects people's right to say offensive, unkind, and even ugly things to each other. Free speech serves as a societal safety valve; provides catharsis to discontented individuals and allows them to blow off steam.

Unless -> shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rise far above public inconvenience ->annoyance-> or unrest.

2. Insightment: In 1969, the Supreme Court replaced the vague "clear and present danger" standard with the Brandenburg/Hess incitement test to determine when speech is sufficiently likely to prompt illegal action that it no longer warrants First Amendment protection.

Incitement test allows punishment when speech is
 -> directed toward inciting immediate violence or illegal action.
-> likely to produce that action.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - government could forbid or punish the advocacy of force only when the advocacy was directed to and was likely to incite  or produce imminent lawless action.

Hess v. Indiana - Hess was protected because his comments were not meant to and not likely to provoke imminent violation of the law.

3.True threats: Speech directed toward one or more specific individuals with the intent of causing listeners to fear for their safety.

For speech to be punishable as a true threat:
1) direct the threat toward one or more individuals
2) with the intent of causing the listener(s)
3) to fear bodily harm or death

4. Media Negligence: Plaintiffs suing the media for causing physical harm most often argue the media negligently distributed material that led to injury or death.

Proximate cause: the legal determination of whether it is reasonable to conclude the defendant's actions led to the plaintiff's injury.

To win a lawsuit for injury caused by media negligence, the plaintiff must prove breach of media's duty of care because the content posed a 1) reasonable foreseeability of harm 2) proximate (directly related) cause of harm.

My Questions/Concerns:
1. In what ways does Donald Trump's language, for example his negative rhetoric to NBC journalist Katy Tur on Twitter and in rallies, who followed him on the campaign trail, incite threat or harassment? Or more generally, how can speech surrounding political campaigns and political candidates be regulated, if at all?

2. Is exacerbating division and pressing heaps of scorn on democratic institutions a threat to our government's peace?

References
Trager, R., Ross, S. D., & Reynolds, A. (2016). The law of journalism and mass communication.. CQ Press.

Chapter 2- The First Amendment: Speech and Press Freedoms in Theory and Reality

Topic Overview:

The First Amendment consists of 45 words, that gives us of the most cherished values of Americans - freedom of speech. Along with freedom of speech, the first amendment gives us the essential liberties of freedom of religion, the freedom of press, the freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government.

This is inherently important because it gives all citizens the right to express without fear of government censorship. The First Amendment is tedious however especially when you start to consider the public vs. private places, on media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, or considering certain rhetoric like threats or defamation.

Defining Key Terms: 

Original intent: the perceived intent of the framers of the First Amendment that guides some contemporary First Amendment application and interpretation.

Ad hoc balancing:  making decisions according to the specific facts of the case under review rather than more general principles.

Categorical binding: a judge's or court's practice of deciding cases by weighing different broad categories, such as political speech, against other categories of interests, such as privacy, to create rules that may be applied in later cases with similar facts.

Prior restraint: Action taken by the government to prohibit publication of a specific document or texts before it is distributed to the public

Defamation:  a false communication that harms another's reputation and subjects him or her to ridicule and scorn; incorporates both libel and slander.

Seditious Libel: communication meant to incite people to change the government; criticism of the government.

6 Core Values of Free Speech:
1) Individual liberty - fundamental natural rights
2) Self-government - discuss political candidates and policies and to render judgments 
3) Limited government power - free speech is an invaluable against tyranny
4) Attainment of truth - increases knowledge and the discovery of the truth
5) Safety valve - free speech allows people to express problems and grievances 
6) Its own end - a valuable good and a cherished right

Injunction: a court order prohibiting a person or organization from doing some specified act. 

Content-neutral laws: laws that incidentally and intentionally affect speech as they advance other important interests. 

Laws of general application: are constitutional; laws such as tax and equal employment laws that fall within the express power of government; laws of general application are generally reviewed under minimum scrutiny.

Rational review: a standard of judicial review that assumes the constitutionality of reasonable legislative or administrative enactments and applies minimum scrutiny to their review. 

Content-based laws: laws enacted because of the message, the subject matter, or the ideas expressed in the regulated speech

*The Supreme Court generally views them as unconstitutional. -> SO, to be viewed constitutional must pass strict scrutiny. 

Compelling interest: a government interest of the highest order, an interest the government is required to protect. 

Content-neutral laws: laws enacted to advance a government purpose unrelated to the content of speech. 

Time/place/manner laws: a First Amendment concept that laws regulating the conditions of speech are more acceptable than those regulating content; also the laws that regulate these conditions. 

Symbolic expression: action that warrants some First Amendment protection because its primary purpose is to express ideas.

Quid pro quo = the payment of a specific action by a candidate, corruption by trying to bribe.

Public forum: government property held for use by the public, usually for purposes of exercising rights of speech and assembly. 

Traditional public forums: land designed for public use and historically used for public gathering, discussion, and association. 

Designated public forum: government spaces or buildings that are available for public use (within designated limits). 

Nonpublic forums: government held property that is not available for public speech and assembly purposes. 

Important Cases:

Near vs. Minnesota - (1931) JM Near published the paper "The Saturday Press" and was arrested because the content in the paper was thought to be racist, prejudiced and hateful. Police arrested him because of the Minnesota Gag Law (hateful media could not be passed to the public) of 1925. 

Near appealed, because he thought this was a restriction of his First Amendment rights and that he was not intending to inflict violence with the words. 

US Supreme Court declared Near was not in violation and that the Gag Law was rather violating the First Amendment. 

New York Times v. United States (1971) - "Pentagon Papers Case" with Nixon Administration attempting to prevent the NYT and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to the Defense Department. The papers would reveal classified information on the US in Vietnam. 

In per curiam (unanimous agreement) the decision was that the press was not in violation of security so this was legal action. 

Relevant Doctrine: 

1.Strict scrutiny:  a test for determining the constitutionality of laws aimed at speech content, under which the government must show it is using the least restrictive means available to directly advance a compelling interest. 

For content based laws to be considered constitutional:

Must be: necessary-> use the least restrictive means-> and advance a compelling government interest

Most rigorous test to see whether a law is constitutional. 

2. Intermediate scrutiny: a standard applied by the court to review laws that implicate core constitutional values; also called a heightened review; fall within the power of government; advance an important or substantial government interest that is unrelated to suppression of speech; be narrowly tailored to impose only an incidental restriction on First Amendment freedoms. 

Must: fall within the power of government-> advance an important or substantial government interest that is unrelated to suppression of speech -> be narrowly tailored to impose only an incidental restriction on the First Amendment freedoms. 

^O'Brien Test: A three part test to determine whether a content-neutral law is constitutional.

Current Issues/Controversies: 
It is fascinating to me to be in an age on the Seattle University college campus and looking out into other college campuses, where students and faculty are surrounded by this idea of political correctness. When first explained to me and as I now intentionally try to practice on a daily basis,  I see the value and the importance of such inclusivity, respect, and carefulness.

However, I am also trying to figure out how it is that some people make others feel or whether or not
(by correcting a person, sometimes with an aggressive tone) is infringing upon one's free speech, or is it just an informal pressure?

My Questions/Concerns: 
1) Does free speech include tattoo art in gangs, or language on clothing in any capacity that is intended to cause harm?

2) What role does tolerance play in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom on expression?

Chapter 1 - The Rule of Law: Law in a Changing Communication Environment

Topic Overview: 

The most defining of a well functioning democracy is the rule of law. Simply, the rule of law applies equally to all citizens in a democracy, including the government officials. Laws exist so that society is governed by rules and not by the desires or interests of individuals or particular groups. It binds all people and branches of government together so that essentially we all exist under one umbrella. Most importantly, it requires that these laws be enforced so that people are held accountable for their actions.

In addition, the laws that are created arise from shared values and morals as a society. In order to live together in our country, states, and neighborhoods, we must have laws that protect citizens for general safety. For example, traffic laws which we are reminded of constantly when driving or even walking the streets. Or, other laws that Americans care deeply for like the first or second amendment. Laws that we see women and students around the world using in the movements and marches arising today.

Defining Key Terms: 

Rule of Law:  the framework of a society in which pre-established norms and procedures must provide for consistent and neutral decision making.

4 Foundations of Rule of Law: 
1) All individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
2) The laws are clear, public, stable and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights.
3) The process by which the laws are enacted, administer and enforced is accessible and fair.
4) Justice is delivered in a timely manner by competent, ethical, independent, and neutral representatives who serve the public good.

Jurisdiction: an independent court system operates in each state, the District of Columbia and the federal government. The military and U.S. territories. The geographic or topical area of responsibility and authority of a court. 

Forum shopping: a practice whereby a plaintiff chooses a court in which to sue because he/she believes the court will rule in favor.

Precedent: the outcome of a previous case that establishes a rule of law that courts within the same jurisdiction rely on to determine cases with similar issues 

Due process:   fair legal proceedings guaranteed by 5th and 14th amendments.

Amicus curiae: "friends of the court"
En banc:   "on the bench"
Pur Curiam Opinion: an unsigned opinion by the court as a whole.

Concurring opinion:  a separate opinion of a minority of the court or a single judge or justice agreeing with the majority but applying different reasoning or legal principles.

Dissenting opinion:   a separate opinion of a minority of the court or of a single judge or justice disagreeing with the result reached by the majority and challenging the majority's reasoning or legal basis.

Remand: sending back to the lower courts.

Memorandum order: an order announcing the vote of the Supreme Court without providing an opinion.

Judicial review: the powers of courts to determine the meanings of language of the Constitution and to assure that now laws violate constitutional dictates.

Federalism:  a principle according to which the states are related to yet independent of each other and are related yet independent of the federal government.

Statutory construction:  the review of statutes in which courts determine the meaning and application of statutes.

Deference: a policy by which courts give weight to the judgement of expert administrative agencies or legislative policies/strategies.

POINTS OF LAW:
(1) Constitutional Law: framed 1787m established 1789; established the nature, functions and limits of government; each of the states also has a constitution. (Legislative, Executive, Judicial)

Amend the Constitution: 
-both chambers of Congress to pass a proposed constitutional amendment by a two-thirds vote in each; two-thirds of the state legislatures to vote for a Constitutional Convention, which then proposes one or more amendments; all amendments to the Constitution also must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.  

(2) Statutory Law: written law formally enacted by city, county, state and federal legislative bodies.
(3) Equity Law: law created by judges to decided cases based on fairness and ethics and also to determine the property remedy.
(4) Common Law:  judge-made law comprised of the principles and traditions established through court rulings; precedent based law.
(5) Administrative Law:   the orders, rules and regulations promulgated by executive branch administrative agencies to carry out delegated duties (FTC and FCC).
(6) Executive Orders:  Orders from a government executive, such as president, governor, or mayor.

STRUCTURE OF JUDICAL SYSTEM:
Federal System - District Court -> Circuit Courts of Appeals -> Supreme Court
State Court System - Country -> Special Court -> Superior Court -> Court of Appeals -> State Supreme Court
US Supreme Court = 9 Justices (Chief Justice determines majority), Rule of 4 = determines if court will hear case.

CASE PROCESS:
Criminal- Probable cause:  the standard of evidence needed for an arrest or to issue search warrants.
Grand jury:  a group summoned to hear the state's evidence in criminal cases and decide whether a crime was committed and whether charges should be filed.
Civil - involve two private individuals or organizations that cannot resolve a dispute.
Plaintiff:  the party who files a complaint; the one who sues.
Defendant: the party accused of violating a law, or the party being sued in a civil lawsuit.
Tort:  a private or civil wrong for which a court can provide remedy in the form of damages.
Motion to dismiss:  a request to a court to reject a complaint because it does not state a claim that can be remedied by law or is legally lacking in some other way.
Demurrer:  a request that the court dismiss a case on the grounds that although the claims are true they are insufficient to warrant a judgement against the defendant.
Subpoena: a command for someone to testify in court.
voir dire:  "to speak the truth," the questioning of prospective jurors.
peremptory challenge:  during jury selection, a challenge in which an attorney rejects a juror without showing reason. Attorneys have the right to eliminate a limited number of jurors through peremptory challenges.

Appellant:  challenges the decision of the court
Appellee:  the party against whom an appeal is made

Summary judgement:  the quick resolution of a legal dispute in which a judge summarily decides certain points and issues a judgement dismissing the case.

Important Cases: 

Marbury v. Madison - 1803, the Supreme Court established the courts' power to interpret laws. The Supreme Court determines the meaning of the US Constitution. It established the courts power for judicial review. 

Current Issues/Controversies:
The potential that the sitting President of the United States may have obstructed justice seems like a controversy that has been with us for the last two years, in regards to the Rule of Law. The denial of due process, and the inability to follow basic procedures has led many in his cabinet and following to be subponeaed by Robert Mueller for questioning. 

My Questions/Concerns: 

1. Can a President's disdain for the Rule of Law affect the citizens he is governing? 


References 
Trager, R., Ross, S. D., & Reynolds, A. (2016). The law of journalism and mass communication. CQ Press.