Case Study

Scenario 1

The scenario is a libel case. A local newspaper has committed defamation against Tom by damaging his reputation publicly. The issue is that Tom is labelled as a 'child molester' despite the court ruling in his favor. The problem arises from Tom's divorce with Sheila, which is notified to be complicated, and the custody of the children was to be identified. With months of litigations, the guardianship is granted to Tom, who was first considered unfit to be the custodian with claims that he sexually abused the children while young. The court, however, dismisses Sheila's claims inappropriate for her case against Tom.

Libel case is also known as defamation is a written or a slander statement which targets the third party. The situation only occurs when the plaintiff claims to have his or her reputation damaged. In the court of law, the plaintiff uses the written or spoken accusations as evidence to form a libel case.

If Tom's case proceeds to the ruling, the plaintiff can only win by proving that he is not a child molester. Tom can therefore claim that the libelous statement which harmed his reputation was based on false accusations. The plaintiff can also use the previous ruling, where the court declared his innocence by handing him the child's custody.

The defendant can win the case by appealing the initial court ruling and proving that Tom is a child molester. By presenting facts and pieces of evidence that back-up the libelous statement, the court could rule in favor of the newspaper company. The defendant must, however, prove that Tom is unfit for the child custody and that the negative reputation as a result of Tom's previous crime.

Legal terms

Libel case - a case in which false statements are made about a person that are published or posted online which stirs up hate or dislike by others.

A libelous statement - any statement that is not based on facts

Child molester - a person who sexually abuses a minor

Plaintiff – a person who accuses another one in a court of law

Defendant – a person sued in court

Related Case

A libel case related to this scenario is the Western Australia v. Rayney libel case. In December 2017, the Western Australian accused Rayney him of killing his wife. The libelous statement created a negative reputation for the defendant. The scenario is similar to the plaintiff Tom who is labelled a 'Child molester' by a local newspaper despite the court of law dismissing the claims. Rayney and Tom's defamation cases create a bad reputation for the defendants who now have to prove their innocence before the court.

Scenario 2

The incidence involves a copyright case. Trevor Noah used a copyright material of the Fox News in his speech at the Sanity Rally. Jennifer and Comedy Central recorded and aired the preceding event in their TV show. In his 20-second clip, Trevor Noah mocked the commentators for lack of logic and rationality in their political debates. Copyright laws protect the poets, media personalities and painters from misuse of their works. Noah unlawfully used the recorded events, to promote his speech.

Noah has a copyright infringement against Jennifer. She recorded Noah's speech at the National mall about the importance of rationality and logic with her digital camera. Jennifer used the recorder speech to post it on her blog without Noah's permission. She only aimed at getting profits from the copyrighted material.

Fox News has a copyright infringement claim against Jennifer. Jennifer recorded the event on her digital camera, which includes the original Fox's clip and posted it in her blog without consulting with the media company. The recorded tape contained the 20-second clip of Fox News that was used by Noah in his speech. It also Noah's speech that mocked Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Megyn Kelly for their conflicting statements. 

Comedy Central has no copyright infringement claim against Jennifer. When Noah made the speech at the National mall, he was working as a host for the Rally to Restore Sanity but not a host to the Daily Show. Comedy Central, therefore, has no say on the copyrighted material by Jennifer regarding Trevor Noah's speech was an original piece.

Jennifer, on the other hand, has no copyright infringement claim against Comedy Central. The TV station recorded an original speech by Trevor Noah. Noah, as the host to the rally, was at the moment not working for Comedy Central thus the speech and remarks he made were original and his own. The TV station did not influence what his statement at the rally for every comment made was written down and read in bits.

The plaintiff, Fox News, can win the case against the defendant Trevor Noah on claims of copyright infringement. At the Rally to Restore Sanity, Trevor Noah used copyrighted materials without Fox News's permission. The copyright featured various hosts and commentators such as Glen Beck. He, therefore, used the 20-second clip to mock the people featured in the clip at the rally. Penalties can be made on the defendant for there are several pieces of evidence that prove that Noah uses the copyrighted material from Fox News. Recordings from Comedy Central aired, and Jennifer posted on her blog can also stand as proof against the defendant. As the host of the Rally, Noah was to gain profits at the end of the speech. Besides, the building of his career as a comedian also generates enormous income.

The defendant can win the case when they prove that the claims of copyright infringements to be false. Spelling facts with evidence could, however, convince the court to rule in his favor. Additionally, Noah can show how his intention with the clip from Fox News was only for comedy, not for any profit gaining purpose.

Legal terms

Plaintiff is an applicant of a case on a person or institution in a court.

A defendant is a person or institution on which the court case is filed.

Copyright case is a case that protects writers or poets from exploitation by others who misuse their work intending to make profits or in an unlawful manner

Related Case

A similar copyright case is of the Rodger v. Koons. Rodgers shot a picture of a couple holding a line of puppies. The image was used in greeting cards later and statues. From the image taken, profits aimed project flourished. The scenario also applies to Jennifer's recording on Trevor Noah's event, where she posted the video to her blog to make profits.

Scenario 3

The scenario was a First Amendment case. The issue, in this case, was based on the illegal protests by the Westboro Baptist members. Benson's family, the plaintiff brought the case against the Phelps who sought damages worth 5 million dollars. The defendants, Westboro members, had inflicted emotional distress on the family during Benson's burial as they protested 200 feet away from where the funeral was taking place.

The scenario is related to the First Amendment. The constitution protects freedom of speech and religion. It also allows freedom of expression during peaceful demonstrations. The fundament rights for Americans, however, only enable constitutional protests. The First Amendment case, therefore, gives space to freedom of speech as a vital tool for establishing democracy. A peaceful demonstration can also address grievances by the people to the government. Collectively, the Amendment consents freedom to expression for all people. On the contrary, false statements, indecent dressing, or violence during protests are some of the limitations of the Westboro Baptist demonstration. They, therefore, broke the rules regarding the First Amendment.

The plaintiff, Benson's family, can win the case when they prove that the protestants broke the law governing the First Amendment. They filed a suit against the protestants on emotional distress with proof of this occurring during the funeral. The protestants also broke criminal laws by involving minors in their protest. The plaintiff can, therefore, prove child abuse where the protests carried a baby with an American flag and making a child dump manure on the banner. Breaking of civil laws was evident when for the Protestants disturbed the peace of the burial by chanting during the service. Based on the Minnesota statue, protesters were only allowed to be 300 feet away from a burial service. The demonstration was then taking place before or after a funeral service. Benson's family can now show clear proof of emotional distress with the Protestants breaking criminal and civil laws.

The defendants can win the case when they show proof of no emotional distress to the plaintiff. The Protestants were 200 feet away from the funeral service; thus, no contact with the mourning family. They can also proof the presence of another protesting group on the pontoon, which was chanting 'we love you, Duane!' hence causing emotional distress to the family. With such proof, the Westboro Baptist members could convince the court to rule in their favor.

Legal terms

First Amendment - It is a case that protects as they protest with the aim of freedom of expression to what they believe to be accurate or according to their faith.

Civil laws – They are policies that handle discourse among people or organizations.

Criminal laws – They are laws that punish the lawbreakers once proven guilty in a court of law.

Protestants - are a group of people who express their freedom of expression to an issue that gather at a particular place peacefully to say what they believe to be wrong.

Related case

A similar case to the scenario took place in 1919 where Justine Oliver was accused of 'shooting fire' in a theatre. The court accused him of attempting to sabotage the armed force by inciting and barring the recruitment and enlisting. The case is a similar case to the Westboro members' incidence who were accused of emotional affliction at Duane's burial to the family with their protest.  

Works Cited

Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp., 536 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1976). 

Western Australia v. Rayney [No 3], 2012 W.A.S.C. 404 (2012).