1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

IT IS THE REQUEST OF THE PLAINTIFF THAT THE CHARGES OF

DEFAMATION (LIBEL), AND LACK OF NEUTRAL REPORTAGE AND PRIVACY BE
BROUGHT UPON THE DEFENDANT. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PLAINTIFF
IN ANY CASE, AND AS SUCH, THE PLAINTIFF FEELS THAT PROOF HAS BEEN
BROUGHT AND SUPPORTED. THE DEFENDANT WAS GROSSLY AND OBVIOUSLY IN
THE ARENA OF FALSEHOOD.

FACTS:

The plaintiff, Halle Jones, is a senior attending South Greenville University. She
majors in Criminal Justice and is a barista at a local coffee shop. She is also employed by WASP,
the local cable access television station, where she is a weekend reporter. She was accepted into
the FBI training program pending her graduation from South Greenville. Halle strives for
greatness and excels in everything she does, never cutting corners or shorting herself of
opportunities, thus preserving her chance for future success.

Halle Jones woke up one morning to her roommate holding up a copy of the local
newspaper, the Skyliner, which is owned and operated by the defendant, Gramnet Media. The
front page was plastered with her picture, and the headline read, Criminal Justice Major Leads
Cheating Ring at South Greenville University. The article stated that Halle was accused of
leading a cheating ring for a period of two years.

She then found that her laptop was preset to the website a television station also
owned by Gramnet, WYGG-TV. She navigated to the link for the newscast's livestream and was
horrified to find she was the subject of the story which was being aired. The news reporters
suggested that she should be kicked out of school and posted her contact information on their
website.

Later on the five o'clock news, it was reported that Halle was in charge of a
cheating ring and showed a grainy video of a girl who generally appeared as Halle handing
papers to a figure in a baseball cap in exchange for money. He reported that she was aspiring to
 2

attend the FBI training program, and that an Abilify addict should not be protecting our country.
In addition, WYGG ran teasers with Halle's face superimposed over a dollar sign every fifteen
minutes.

The story on WYGG-TV at five would not have been aired had it not been for the
reckless news gathering actions of Ted Mills. Mills is a reporter for the station, which is in the
number 128 television market in America. In comparison, New York holds the number one
market, which is where Mills aspires to work someday. Chris Story, news director for WYGG-
TV, told his news team to do whatever you have to do to get the story! Mills found his perfect
opportunity to propel himself into a larger market with a big story, and he told Story he would
cover Halle's cheating scandal.

Mills went to South Greenville University dressed in attire college students would
wear in an attempt to blend in. He discovered where Halle's dorm is located and knocked on the
door, which he found was unlocked. He went in and took photos of the dormitory.

He found a stack of master grade forms next to Halle's tip money, which she
placed in a manilla envelope. He heard someone coming, so he sneakily hurried off with the
papers, leaving a backpack with a Wi-Fi equipped webcam in the room. He then found a random
car in the parking lot with a bumper sticker that read I Love The FBI and saw there was a
bottle of Abilify inside, so he took video of it for his news story, which later broke the five
o'clock news. The footage of the car was unpublished on the broadcast.

After the story broke, Halle was suspended from school, the FBI training academy
gave her spot away, and the coffee shop requested she not show up for work for the rest of the
week. This is all shown in the record. Halle was devastated and overwhelmed by how much her
life had changed in just one day.

ARGUMENT

Defamation is when an entity's reputation or good standing in a community is

compromised after being revealed to public hatred or shame. Defamation in this case is libel, that
which is published.
 3

By airing the exposes on Halle Jones on WYGG-TV, Gramnet Media libeled the
plaintiff. While the morning news story suggested that Jones was possibly involved in the
scandal (libel per quod, a suggestive infliction), the five o'clock report explicitly stated that Halle
was involved in a cheating ring (libel per se). Libel in this case was brought upon by falsely
criticizing of character, and habits.

It was reported that Halle was involved in a cheating ring and was being paid for
her services. No such accusations were investigated or found to be true. The accusations were
published; the statements are deemed false; they caused damage; they were directly about Halle
Jones. Halle lost her opportunity at the FBI for this summer term. It could be argued that she did
not lose her chance completely, since the FBI did in fact encourage her to reapply. However, this
was pending her name being cleared, and as of right now, her ethical representation is tarnished
in the public eye.

Her job at the coffee shop was compromised, and while she did not lose it, she
will forever be known to customers as the cheating barista. The shop will no doubt see a public
relations nightmare for employing someone like this, and Jones herself will be uncomfortable in
the shop. People do not want to give tips to someone like this, and Jones was saving money for a
newer, more reliable car to take her to the FBI. Without reliable transportation, Jones will not be
able to even go to the FBI academy, even if she is accepted once again.

It could be argued that Halle was a limited public figure, since she was a reporter
for WASP, a competing television station for Gramnet's WYGG-TV. However, WASP is a local
cable access channel, and is not in direct competition with WYGG-TV. Even with this in hand,
we can entertain the idea that she is indeed a public figure. Public figures must in turn prove
actual malice, a reckless disregard for the truth.

The precedent for actual malice for public figures was set in New York Times v.
Sullivan. Just because a car in a parking lot has an FBI bumper sticker in it does not mean it
belongs to Halle. Therefore the claims that Halle is an Abilify addict can not be taken seriously.
This is actual malice, and has grounds for ill intent because of the fact that misleading and
otherwise untrue information was published by an entity.

In Hoeppner v. Dunkirk, the ruling stated that everyone has a right to comment
 4

on matters of public interest and concern, provided they do so fairly and with an honest
purpose. Opinions are different in representation from facts. Facts are that which are deemed
truth, and this was not presented as an opinion. It was presented as truth in the headline from the
Skyliner, which read Criminal Justice Major Leads Cheating Ring at South Greenville
University.

Neutral reportage must also be met. Information is to be from a credible source,

must be of public interest, and the criticized party must be given the chance to respond. The
source for the newspaper article was from an anonymous tip service. Anyone can make an
accusation on such a service. This is of public interest, because it is in effect newsworthy. A
cheating ring is something that the public would like to be informed on, whether or not any laws
were broken by an accused.

In addition, if we are to switch gears and assume Gramnet was a direct competitor
to WASP, it could be argued that neutral reporting was not met and that Gramnet was negligent
in its news gathering and motives to publish a story on a competitor's employee in order to draw
more viewers from WASP. Since this is the number 128 television market in America, viewership
is extremely vital to such a station in a small market.

If Gramnet Media argues that they are immune to any case because Ted Mills was
in the wrong in his irresponsible story and the use of anonymous tip service, the case Troy
Publishing v. Norton sets the precident for denying organizations from enjoying blanket
immunity based upon second hand insults.

Jones was never contacted by the news organization, but was awoken by her
roommate shoving the published article in her face. She was not informed of her accusations.
The organization ran three different libelous stories, one from the Skyliner, and two on WYGG-
TV- one on the morning newscast and the other on the five o'clock news.

Privacy can be applied to this case.

False light presents information in an exaggerated or misleading manner.

Assuming that Halle is indeed prescribed to Abilify, there is a difference between someone
 5

taking Abilify and someone being an Abilify addict. The argument may be made that she stole
the Abilify, but once again, without knowing what Halle's car looks like, one must not assume
the Abilify was in her possession or in her vehicle, however it was originally obtained. It is
remembered that it was only a claim. The footage of the car was never aired. And even with the
case Cantrell v. Forest sets the precedent that actual malice should be proven for public figures,
and it has been indeed.

Intrusion could be argued in this case, and in Dietemann v. Time, the plaintiff won
because cameras were placed inside a private home. However, universities may or may not be
public property paid by taxpayers through grants and scholarships brought by the state, and this
would not be a viable course of action for the plaintiff. Appropriation may not be used in this
case, because Halle Jones was not being used to endorse anything commercial. This is a matter
only between Gramnet and Halle Jones.

An infliction of emotional distress may be argued if Halle Jones is not deemed a

public figure. Since Jones would not be a public figure, being thrown into the spotlight and
becoming such a figure in a false, negative light would cause emotional distress. However, if she
is a public figure, because like in Hustler v. Falwell, emotions are no cause for actual malice in a
case involving a proposed public figure.

FOIA may not be used as a viable counter-argument because there were no crimes
committed and no need for records brought up against Jones.

CONCLUSION

This case is about the accuracy and truth with regards to the plaintiff, Halle Jones.
The defendant has presented misleading falsehoods as fact, whether directly or indirectly. The
evidence is quite cut and dry. Gramnet Media obviously has disregard for the truth, and is highly
irresponsible in their news gathering practices. The request for a case for defamation (libel),
neutral reportage, and privacy are now henceforth made.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jordan Slate