Media Law

Hypo One:

A. Mitchell is suing her ex-husband, the defendant,

Witriol for libel, intentional infliction of emotional

distress, invasion of privacy, and presenting her in a

false light. He claimed in an article published in

Maxim that his wife fraudulently accepted child

support reaching 2 million dollars. Witriol was asked

to do a DNA test to prove that he fathered his

daughter, Ariella Mitchell-Witriol. When his company

(which tests DNA) was caught with several

false-postive results, the FBI took a further notice.

Like in the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, there

is not enough evidence to support Mr. Witriol in the

facts which he was claming in print and on television,

via The Montel Williams Shower, Maury Povich, and

Tucker Carlsen.

B. In the case of Mr. Witriol, the final divorce

agreement stated that Witriol would have to pay the

sum of $6,000 per month in alimony. After a bitter

custody battle, Mitchell was granted custody of their

daughter. The settlement was agreed in 1982. If Mr.

Witriol agreed to pay child support until Ariella's

twelfth birthday, why would he claim that he was not

her father? Such that, there was no evidence to prove

that Ariella truly is Witriol's biological daughter.

In such a manner, Witriol co-owns the DNA Source, a

non profit organization which specializes in solving

crimes. If this man has a career where he truly cares

about putting criminals behind bars, and is receiving

little to no money in exchange, he must believe that

he did not father Ariella. If he cannot afford the

sum of money, he would have settled that in the

divorce agreement. There has no be a logical

reasoning behind Mr. Witriol's claim. Like in,

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia. If there is no proof, like a

paternity test, there is no evidence to claim that Mr.

Witriol engaged in libel.

C. In the case of Ariella Witriol-Mitchell being an

add-on to her mother's case, she has the right to file

claims of libel, infliction of emotional distress,

invasion of privacy by intrusion, false light, and

appropriation against her father, Mr. Witriol. Like in

the case of Romaine v. Kallinger, Ariella's privacy

was invaded. Invasion of privacy includes the

intrusion into one's personal life, without a just

cause. There was no just cause in either Miss

Mitchell or Ariella.

D. In A, I ruled for Miss Mitchell because as a single

mother, I believe that she should have every right

to child support and alimony. Her ex-husband made

claims that he was not the father after a 2-million

dollars frenzy. In B, I took the side of Mr. Witriol

because of his career and money issues which should

have been settled in the divorce agreements. In C, I

believed that Ariella should take the side of her

mother because that is who raised her and she deserves

to know the truth about her father, whether he is

biologically hers or contrarily not.

E. Other issues not brought to surface in this case

were the nude photos of Ariella at the age of sixteen.

The issue was brought up that they had re-surfaced,

but the helicopters and media flying above were never

released. She was forced to be a celebrity under

invasion of privacy and intrusion. Also, Miss

Mitchell claimed that she had never slept with another

man while she was with her husband. There are no

facts to go upon in that claim.

Hypo 2:

F. Yes, the list contained content-based regulation.

The list's subject matter contained: religion, sex

gender content, and race.

G. No. Like in Cohen v. California's "F*ck the Draft"

case, the Court of Appeal held that "offensive

conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to

provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn

disturb the peace." Therefore, it does not pass as

constitutional scrutiny.

H. The school has a right to commercial law and

content neutrality censorship. If the content was

written in a fair way, who really would care? There is

a