Identifying Factors to Prove a Defamation Suit
Analyze the following case study:
Early one morning, a 911 operator received a telephone call from a distraught woman who reported that she was hearing disturbing noises—crying and screaming—coming from a small day care center adjacent to her house. Workers at the 911 operation center notified a city social services agency of the report. But they also passed on the information from the call to a local television (TV) station, WIXR, because they believed that the social services agency was lax in its enforcement policies regarding day care centers. The TV station sent a crew to talk to the owner of the day care center, Melinda Wall, and outlined the concerns that had been reported to the crisis center. Wall declined to comment. That night the TV station broadcast the following report:
- A city social services agency is reportedly looking into allegations of children crying and screaming in the Happy Days Day Care Center at 1456 Marblehead Way.
- A neighbor reported the unusual sounds to a 911 operator, which in turn contacted the agency and this station. An agency spokesperson reported that its investigators are looking into the possibility of improper behavior by the day care center’s staff as the cause of children’s crying and screaming.
- Happy Days Day Care Center is owned and operated by Melinda Wall, who refused to comment about the allegations. The center has been open for six months. Prior to that, Wall operated a similar center in Toledo, Ohio, for two years. The State of Ohio revoked Wall’s license in 2006 when it found unsanitary conditions at the day care center.
The television report generated considerable publicity about the center and its owner, with more television reports and newspaper stories. But an investigation by the social service agency revealed that nothing illegal or dangerous was occurring at Happy Days. The noise reported by the neighbor came from a video on a television. The sound from the video resonated throughout the neighborhood because one of the children had turned up the volume. Wall sued WIXR for defamation because of its initial report. She argued that it contained numerous errors and that the WIXR’s employees had been negligent in preparing the story. She cited the following errors:
- Happy Days had been open for 16 months, not 6 months.
- Wall operated a day care center in Toledo, Washington, not Toledo, Ohio.
- Her license for that facility was not revoked. The state merely refused to renew the license unless Wall added additional bathroom facilities at the center, and she could not afford to do that.
Write a 525- to 700-word response that addresses the following questions about the case study:
- What will Melinda Wall have to prove to establish her defamation suit?
- Do you agree with the station’s argument that Wall is a limited-purpose public figure due to all of the allegation publicity? Explain your answer.
- What should be the case outcome? Defend your rationale.
Cite references to support your assignment.
Format your assignment according to APA guidelines.
Defamation Suit Case Study
Student’s Name
Institution
Defamation Suit Case Study
Melinda Wall's defamation suit relies on several factors that she needs to prove before the court. According to Calvert, Kozlowski, and Silver (2018), the burden of proof in a defamation case lies with the plaintiff, in this case, Wall, who must prove five crucial elements as follows:
1 Publication- Wall must prove that the defamatory statements were published. In her case, the false information was broadcasted, which means it was also scripted.
2 Identification- Wall must prove that the story was about her. Her name, not just the name of her daycare center, was mentioned or implied in the story. She must show that at least two people knew/believed that the story was about her and her daycare center.
3 Defamation- Wall must prove that the words used in the TV report were unmistakably defamatory (they would still damage anyone’s else reputation, also known as libel per se) or they were innocent at face value but would damage her reputation if the viewers knew more details about her (libel per quod). In her case, she must show that other than the report saying that children were crying at the daycare center, it also provided viewers with more details about her i.e. that her license to operate a daycare in another state had been revoked.
4 Falsity- Wall has to prove that the statements published by the TV station were not true. For instance, she can provide documentation showing that she had been running the daycare center for 16 months rather than 6 months.
5 Fault- As a public figure, Wall must prove that the defendant knew that the statements on the TV report were false and still went ahead and broadcasted them. As a private person, she needs to prove that the defendant failed to research whether the statements were false.
I disagree with the station’s argument that Wall is a limited-purpose public figure. According to O'Connor (2020), a limited-purpose public figure is a person who voluntarily puts themselves or is drawn to th...