Case Report #1 June 2, 2016
Download 8.21 Kb.
|
| Justina Teale
Media 421 Case Report #1 June 2, 2016 THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION v. JEWELL Court of Appeals of Georgia, October 10, 2001 Circumstances: In 1996 the Atlanta Journal- Constitution covered the Centennial Olympic Park bombing, as well as the involvement of Richard Jewell partook in the incident. When coverage first started he was made to be a hero since he discovered the bomb, and was apart of the evacuation of innocent bystanders. However soon after, Jewell became one of the FBI’s main suspect and soon became the anti-hero across the media. About 19 articles were published including a headline article published by the Atlanta-Constitution portraying him as a guilty criminal. His family as well as himself for weeks suffered from the Media outlets. Jewell was found innocent. In 1999, Jewell seeks to Jewell moved for partial summary judgments, and proclaiming that the trial court should find that he is a private, versus a public figure. The trial court determined that Jewell is a "voluntary limited-purpose public figure" and thereby required him to meet the actual malice standard of proof set forth in New York Times v. Sullivan in this defamation action. Jewell appeals this ruling. Question(s): Is Jewell (the plaintiff in the defamation), a public or private figure in the case, as those terms are used in defamation cases, though Jewell contends the trial court erred in finding that he is a "public figure" for purposes of this defamation action? Was the plaintiff's involvement in the controversy makes them a public figure, general or limited? Decision: According to trial court that was held, Jewell was found to be a voluntary limited-purpose public figure. The record contains a very clear and considerable amount of evidence that proved Jewell was an involuntary limited-purpose public figure. Generally, a public figure voluntarily puts himself into a position to influence the outcome of the controversy, "occasionally, someone is caught up in the controversy involuntarily and, against his will, assumes a prominent position in its outcome. Unless he rejects any role in the debate, he too has 'invited comment' relating to the issue at hand”. Though he never sought to capitalize on the fame that he had received through his actions in the events that surrounded the bombing, he still became public simply by giving his statements. Precedence supporting the plaintiff (JEWELL):
Precedence supporting the appellant (THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION):
Importance of this case: This decision from this case allowed for the law to be able to make a better understanding of defamation cases that the plaintiff was unaware of his/her role. As well as being able to make better guidelines on whether a person is a public figure, general or limited. Quote: "It is no answer to the assertion that one is a public figure to say, truthfully, that one doesn't choose to be. It is sufficient . . . that [Jewell] voluntarily engaged in a course that was bound to invite attention and comment." Directory: 2016 2016 -> Senate, No. 627 State of new jersey 217th legislature 2016 -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program 2016 -> Instructions for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to the Conference Proceedings 2016 -> Strategic Plan South Sudan Country Office Context 2016 -> Original: English 2016 -> Step student Scholarships for Year 10-13 2016 -> Resolution 2016 -> American bar association adopted by the house of delegates Download 8.21 Kb. Share with your friends:
|