Study Guides (380,000)
CA (150,000)
UOttawa (10,000)
CMN (400)
Final

CMN 2170 Study Guide - Final Guide: Actual Malice, Crown Attorney


Department
Communication
Course Code
CMN 2170
Professor
Mark Lowes
Study Guide
Final

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 3 pages of the document.
HILL VS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO
Contempt preceding : when a contestant deliberately felts/pelts a court ruling ?
!
!
The charter of right and freedom only applies to governmental action.
!
Hills(crown attorney - governmental representative )actions bringing a defamation
constitutes governmental action.
Is Hills personal identity separate from his professional identity.
*New York Times VS Sullivan 1960
A landmark US Supreme court ruling - Actual Malice rule. Public government officials
must expect that they will be subject to more (scrutiny, judgments) than the general
public.
Defense of justification (truth).
May constitute harassment if it is suspected that if malice was involved.
Defense of responsible communication
!
!
The actual malice rule (see NY VS Sullivan) is something that Morris Manning! wants
the SCC to adopt .
The SCC refused to adopt the actual malice rule because it has the effect to imply that a
person dignity and their reputation are not connected/related.
!
The Press conference
Defense of qualified privilege attaches to the occasion.
Empirical nature of the occasion.
!
Take into account the location, his professional attire and the involvement of the nation
national media all show the importance and grandeur of the event.
What document was he reading from?
The document contained very specific allegations against Hill.
!
They were highly deleterious to his reputation. If the a document that he was reading
from was to be submitted to the court ,it can be considered an official court document.
Therefore the fact that Manning had read from the document the day before it had been
submitted it to the court is irrelevant, in this case.
!
Relationship between timing the press document and the timing from the document was
submitted to the court.
!
Manning: he argued that he was reading from a court document, defending his client -
he was wasn’t liable?
!
The allegations were false - Manning knew that ( he negleted to investigate any futher
to find out whether the allegations were true. )
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version