Week 3: Assignment and Student Response

WednesdayMar 7 at 8:43am

Manage Discussion Entry

The Portland Patriot is a newspaper that spoke about the incident in Portland, Oregon during an ice and snow storm. The workers that supposed to clear the roads and sideways are not skillful at doing their duties. The workers want to bring the newspaper to the court.

The court rule of argument on the Patriot’s defense is that the First Amendment protects the defamatory statement the paper made. Say, for instance, The Portland Patriot knew of false information during the time the data reported. According to Find Law (n.d.). “actual malice only occurs when the person making the statement knew the statement was not true at the time he made it or had a reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.” The patriot did not mean to make a fuss despite, and they want the public to know that the worker’s job is to clear the roads, but why they are not doing it. The court would want evidence that the workers did proceed their job duties.

The basis for the court ruling is that the statement is not defamatory. Therefore, The Portland Patriots did not commit censorship. As (Pember & Calvert, 2013, p.39) points out, “freedom of expression can be simply defined as the absence of censorship or freedom from government control.” The patriot statement about the state workers is acceptable because it is defending the state, which is the public. The public would agree that the workers were not getting the job done. Furthermore, the court would dismiss the case, and the public can file a complaint with the workers. The state would have to hire more competent workers to clear the roads.

Tolanda

References

Find Law, (n.d.). Defamation law: the basics. Retrieved from http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Pember, D. R. & Calvert, C. (2013). Mass media law. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Mass-Media-Law-Don-Pember/dp/1259913902