Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Transcript of S.L.A.P.P.ed Silent
The First Amendment, Social Media, and a Deomcratic Marketplace.
By Julia Huxman Year: 2010
Parties: Dr. Wong (Plaintiff)
Medium: Internet site, www.Yelp!.com Status: Still pending in the California State Supreme Court. Wong v. Jing The New York Times v. Sullivan Year: 1964
Parties: L.B. Sullivan (Plaintiff)
The New York Times (Defendant)
Mode: Newspaper Outcome: New York Times could not be held liable for defamation.
And "Public Officials" cannot collect damages on defamation so long as the claims are not made with "actual malice." Public Interest Protection of Democracy Defamation: (1)A publication, that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) underprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or cause special damage.
Libel is defamation in a written form, and
slander is defamation in the spoken form.
Libel: “a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation” Strategic
Participation Motivational Factors
1.the intent to retaliate;
2.the attempt to prevent future opposition;
3.the intent to intimidate; and
4.a view of litigation and the use of the court system as simply another tool in a strategy to win a political and/ or economic battle. 1. The disregard of social status,
2. A domain of common concern,
3. A general accessibility to participation, Research Question: How has the First Amendment adapted to the evolution of public forum mediums? "The effective functioning of a free government likes ours depends largely on the force of an informed public opinion."
- NYT v. Sullivan "Consumer information
that 1) goes beyond a particular interaction between the parties and 2)implicates matters of public concern that can affect many people is generally deemed to involve an issue of public interest for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statue."
- Wong v. Jing Dissemination of
It is important not to discourage newspapers from carrying this type of "outlet for the promulgation of information and ideas by persons who do not themselves."
- NYT v. Sullivan "The internet is an important source of public information."
And, "the review concerned an issue of public interest and was made in a public forum."
- Wong v. Jing "These liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy."
- NYT v. Sullivan "The purpose of anti-S.L.A.P.P. statutes is to give relief... to participation in matters of public concern."
- Wong v. Jing Over 70% of online consumers consulting consumer reviews in their pre-purchasing research “at least sometimes”
- Dr. Barnes, Journal of New Communications Research 84% of the respondents “do consider the quality of customer care at least sometimes," while 16% said they "rarely or never do."
- Dr. Barnes, Journal of New Communications Research Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) advertising is considered to be “created and delivered by a more trustworthy source of information… than company-generated persuasive messages.”
- Chu&Kim, International Journal of Advertising The full post submitted on Yelp!.com by Tai Jing
1 star rating . . . . [¶] Let me first say I wish there is [sic] `0' star in Yelp rating. Avoid her like a disease! [¶] My son went there for two years. She treated two cavities plus the usual cleaning. She was fast, I mean really fast. I won't necessarily say that is a bad thing, but my son was light headed for several hours after the filling. So we decided to try another dentist after half a year. [¶] I wish I had gone there earlier. First the new dentist discovered seven cavities. All right all of those appeared during the last half a year. Second, he would never use the laughing gas on kids, which was the cause for my son's dizziness. To apply laughing gas is the easiest to the dentist. There is no waiting, no needles. But it is general anesthetic, not local. And general anesthetic harms a kid's nerve system. Heck, it harms mine too. Third, the filling Yvonne Wong used is metallic silver color. The new dentist would only use the newer, white color filling. Why does the color matter? Here is the part that made me really, really angry. The color tells the material being used. The metallic filing, called silver amalgams [sic], has a small trace of mercury in it. The newer composite filling, while costing the dentist more, does not. In addition, it uses a newer technology to embed fluoride to clean the teeth for you. [¶] I regret ever going to her office. [¶] P.S. Just want to add one more thing. Dr Chui, who shares the same office with Yvonne Wong is actually decent.