![]() 1988) (newsworthiness “is a question to be answered by the jury”) Virgil v. Saltz Plastic Surgery, P.C., 367 P.3d 1006, 1013 (Utah 2016) (if court concludes that reasonable minds could differ concerning the newsworthiness of the information, then the issue is a jury question) Times-Mirror Co. In this case, public concern was a question of fact that was properly submitted to the jury, which this Court should now independently review under the constitutional facts doctrine. Gawker Defendants erroneously contend that public concern is a pure question of law. Hogan doesn’t disagree with the idea that “a matter of public concern” is protected, and instead argues that it is for a jury to initially decide whether a given publication is on “a matter of public concern:” 1994) (affirming dismissal of case arising from broadcast of sexually oriented video because “[whether a matter is of public concern is a question of law for the court”). at 458-60 (setting aside jury verdict for intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion based on conclusion that speech giving rise to claims related to matter of public concern) Cinel v. 5th DCA 1982) (same at post-trial motion stage) see also Snyder, 562 U.S. 1989) (deciding public concern issue at summary judgment stage) Cape Publ’ns, Inc. ![]() Whether a specific publication related to a matter of public concern presents a legal question, properly decided by a court, including at the post-trial motion stage. Gawker argues that, where a publication relates to “a matter of public concern” and is truthful, the First Amendment prohibits any lawsuits for damages arising from it:Īs a threshold matter, Defendants are entitled to an entry of judgment in their favor as to all claims because, as a matter of law, the publication, including the challenged video excerpts, related to a matter of public concern.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |