Essay About Case Of New York Times V And Ariella Mitchell-Witriol

Media Law
Essay Preview: Media Law
Report this essay
Hypo One:
A. Mitchell is suing her ex-husband, the defendant,
Witriol for libel, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, invasion of privacy, and presenting her in a
false light. He claimed in an article published in
Maxim that his wife fraudulently accepted child
support reaching 2 million dollars. Witriol was asked
to do a DNA test to prove that he fathered his
daughter, Ariella Mitchell-Witriol. When his company
(which tests DNA) was caught with several
false-postive results, the FBI took a further notice.
Like in the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, there
is not enough evidence to support Mr. Witriol in the
facts which he was claming in print and on television,
via The Montel Williams Shower, Maury Povich, and
Tucker Carlsen.
B. In the case of Mr. Witriol, the final divorce
agreement stated that Witriol would have to pay the
sum of $6,000 per month in alimony. After a bitter
custody battle, Mitchell was granted custody of their
daughter. The settlement was agreed in 1982. If Mr.
Witriol agreed to pay child support until Ariellas
twelfth birthday, why would he claim that he was not
her father? Such that, there was no evidence to prove
that Ariella truly is Witriols biological daughter.
In such a manner, Witriol co-owns the DNA Source, a
non profit organization which specializes in solving
crimes. If this man has a career where he truly cares
about putting criminals behind bars, and is receiving
little to no money in exchange, he must believe that
he did not father Ariella. If he cannot afford the
sum of money, he would have settled that in the
divorce agreement. There has no be a logical
reasoning behind Mr. Witriols claim. Like in,
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia. If there is no proof, like a
paternity test, there is no evidence to claim that Mr.
Witriol engaged in libel.
In the case of Ariella Witriol-Mitchell being an
add-on to her mothers case, she has the right to file
claims of libel, infliction of emotional distress,
invasion of privacy by intrusion, false light, and
appropriation against her father, Mr. Witriol. Like in
the case of Romaine v. Kallinger, Ariellas privacy
was invaded. Invasion of privacy includes the
intrusion into ones personal life, without a just
cause. There was no just cause in either Miss
Mitchell or Ariella.
In A, I ruled for Miss Mitchell because as a single
mother, I believe that she should have every right
to child support and alimony. Her ex-husband made
claims that he was not the father after a 2-million
dollars frenzy. In B, I took the side of Mr. Witriol
because of his career and money issues which should
have been settled in the divorce agreements. In C, I
believed that Ariella should take the side of her
mother because that is who raised her and she deserves
to know the truth about her father, whether he is
biologically hers or contrarily not.
Other issues not brought to surface in this case
were the nude photos of Ariella at the age of sixteen.
The issue was brought up that they had re-surfaced,
but the helicopters and media flying above were never
released. She was forced to be a celebrity under
invasion of privacy and intrusion. Also, Miss
Mitchell claimed that she had never slept with another
man while she was with her husband. There are no
facts to go upon in that claim.
Hypo 2:
Yes, the list contained content-based regulation.
The lists subject matter contained: religion, sex
gender content, and race.
No. Like in Cohen v. Californias “F*ck the Draft”
case, the Court of Appeal held that “offensive
conduct” means “behavior which has a tendency to
provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn
disturb the peace.” Therefore, it does not pass as
constitutional scrutiny.
The school has a right to commercial law and
content neutrality censorship. If the content was
written in a fair way, who really would care? There is