Questions and Answers

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 5

Questionsand Answers

InstitutionalAffiliations

Questionsand Answers

Howdoes the&nbspOllman&nbsptest differ fromthe&nbspMilkovich&nbsptest as a means ofdistinguishing fact from opinion?

IntheMilkovich test,thefocusis on a singlequestion,which dwellson theargumenton whethera defamatorymaterialcan be provedto be trueorfalse.On theotherhand,Ollman testexaminesthesameissue,butalsoputforththequestionabout themeaningof wordsin thesocialandjournalisticcontextsthat yielddefamatorystatements.By consideringthephilosophyof thefreespeechandtheMilkovich decision,itis clearthatthere is ambiguityin Milkovich`s andOllman`s tests(Sussman, 1991). Theambiguityinitiateslegalinconsistenciesandat thesametimenegatesthefreedomof expressionthat is instrumentalin theprosperityof socialdiscourse.

Ollmantestallowsthefreedomandincorporatescontextbecauseitcomprisesfaultyprongof theMilkovich test.However,itshould indicatethatthetestis an end-all testthat protectstheopinionsas itappearscurrently. Lastly,itis worthto understandwhatlegallyseparatesfactsandopinions,oriftheeffectiveness of theOllman’stestwould beweakenedorjeopardizediftheindicatedprongis removed.Milkovich testgivesa degreeof austerityby havingan assumptionthattheaverageconsumersare influencedby anyinformationtheyencounter.On theotherhand,Ollman allowsfreedomin a broadsense,however,theinformationthat reachesthecustomeris consideredto haveflaws(McLean, 1993).

Whatare theprimarydefensestolibel?Givean application

Accordingto Hindman (2007), libelis a tort that involvesthedistributionof falseinformationabout thegroup,entityora person.Itinvolvestangibledefamationthat can beseen,includingprinting,effigy,writing,statue,ora movie.Libelharmsa reputationby decreasingrespect,regard,andconfidence.Itinduceshostility,disparaging,disagreeableopinionsorthefeelingagainst certainindividuals.There are four defensesto libel.There is an accident,truth,consent,andprivilege.In fact,thepremisethatthealleged defamatory instanceis essentiallytrueis an absolutedefense.In essence,thedefendantmust verifythedetailsof communicationas faras substancecan beestablished.Iftheplaintiff agreesto thepublicationof thedefamatory materials,thentherecoveryis barred.Ifthepublicationis accidental,thedefamatory materialsdonot constitutepublication.

Inthecontextof privilege,theimmunityis conferredtoa smallnumberof thedefendantswhoare involvedin thefurtheranceof thepublicbusinessforinstance,judges,attorneys,jurors,andwitnesseswhoare protectedby thepublicpolicygrounds.Therightsto replyareregardedas thesecondarylibeldefenses.Therefore,neithertherightsof consentnorreplyis enoughto avertthevastmajorityof libelsuits.In addition,bothdefenseare dealingwith unusualinstancesandlacka longlineof precedencelitigationthatcourtshaveusedto dismissa libelaction.

Ontheotherhand,to recovera libelsuit,theplaintiff is expectedto demonstrateevidencein four elements.Thefirstelementis proving behold doubt thatthedefendantdidconveya messagethat wasdefamatory. Secondly,theplaintiff must demonstratethatheorsheis theindividualin thereferenceof defamatorymaterials.Thirdly, plaintiff must showthatindeedthedefamatory materialswerepublished.Lastly,theplaintiff must demonstratethatthepublisheddefamatory materialsinjuredhis orher reputationin theprocessof thecommunication(Hindman, 2007).

Circumstancesin which Written Consent may not sufficeas a Defense in an Appropriation Case

Inmanystates,thewrittenconsentissuedtodaymay not be validin thefuture,moresoifitis gratuitousoralconsent.In somecases,courtshaveruledthatoralconsentmay becomeinvalidover timeifthenotorietyof an individualwhogavetheconsenthas increasedwith time.Theconsentto usethe likenessortheperson’snamemight begivenbyan individual,firm,orauthorizedcorporationby thedeceasedorthefamily.Unless theperson’snameorlikenessis legallyassignedto thesurvivingentityafter thedeathof a person,thenthere is norightof publicitythat will surviveafter theperson’sownlife.In fact,consentis thebestdefensein theappropriationcaseshowever,not allindividualscan makeconsent.Inessence,someconsentsare highlyinvalid,especiallyifthepersonmakingtheconsentis mentallyill,has beenincarceratedin prison,andtheconsentto useacertainphotographhas beenalteredwith timeorgetslostbefore theconsentis implemented(Dickerson, 1991).

Thoughts,Ideals, andInsight in theArticle

Substanceabuseis a universalbehaviorthat is experiencedallover theworld.In fact,in theworkingplacemanyemployeesaresaidto workunder theinfluenceofthedrugs,a habitthat affecttheir productivity.Somecompanieshaveintegrateddrugtestingprogramsto promoteproductivityandcultivatea safeworkingenvironment.However,itis arguedthattestingemployeeson thosegroundsis a violationof their rightsandprivacy.Thestatistics indicatethatimplementingdrugtestingprogramsencouragetheemployeesto be sober,andthelevel of their productivityisenhanced.Infact,in my ownopinion,thesetestscan infringeon a person’sprivacybecauseas sometestsare aimedat scrutinizingtheamountof drugconsumedby theemployeebefore theystarta job,anothertestmay not tellwhenan employeetookthealcoholorwhetherthedetectedamounthas anysignificantinfluenceon their productivity.Indeed,thetesteddrugmight havebeenconsumedin thepriornight,butitis stillin thebodysystem,however,its impactmay be negligible. Secondly,theresultsof thedrug-testing programcan be biasedandtampered with to providedesirableorundesirableresultsaccordingto theoutcomerequiredby theimplementingagencyandthemanagement.In essence,ifa programneedto beimplemented,theymanagementshould encouragemoreof socialimpactsthan theeconomicbenefits(Koster, 2009).

References

Dickerson,D. L. (1991). Floridamedia law.Tampa: University of South Florida Press.

Hindman,E. B. (2007). When is the Truth not the Truth? Truth Telling andLibel by Implication. CommunicationLaw and Policy.

Koster,K. (2009, November). Drug tests: Accurate measures of impairment orineffective invasions of privacy? EmployeeBenefit News, 23(14),16-19.

McLean,D. (1993). Clarification of fact and opinion distinction badlyneeded. CommunicationsandtheLaw,15(4).55-72.

Sussman,E. M. (1991). Milkovich Revisited: “Saving” the OpinionPrivilege. DukeLaw Journal,41(2),415-448.