1. INTRO Q & A

2.  Proofread for spelling, mechanical, or grammatical errors.  If a sentence doesn’t make sense or is unclear, tell them so!  Look at the introduction to the piece:  Does it make you want to read on? [be honest]  Could it identify the topic of the interview more clearly?  Could they do a better job of identifying the person?  If it is brief, could they add information about…  When and where the interview took place?  The topic of the interview [when? where? why?]  Does their interview/piece as a whole focus on something in particular? [is it about something or just a profile?]  Feel free to ask them what they were trying to accomplish. If they fell short, tell them why.  What are THREE follow up questions they could’ve asked, but didn’t?  AUTHOR: What are 2-3 things you would do different if you could do this interview over again?

3. Christine O’Donnell

4.  Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1987): A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, had a incestuous relationship with his mother. Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages.  Question: Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress?  Conclusion: In a unanimous opinion the Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice." The Court added that the interest of protecting free speech, under the First Amendment, surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures from patently offensive speech, so long as such speech could not reasonably be construed to state actual facts about its subject.  Decision: 8 votes for Hustler Magazine, 0 vote(s) against Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

5. Song Parodies

6.  Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1993) : Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. sued 2 Live Crew and their record company, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song "Pretty Woman" infringed Acuff-Rose's copyright in Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman." The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair.  Question: May 2 Live Crew's commercial parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" be a fair use within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976?  Conclusion: Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that a parody's commercial character is only one element to be weighed in a fair use enquiry and that insufficient consideration was given to the nature of parody in weighing the degree of copying. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the presumption that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair, as no such evidentiary presumption was available to address either the character and purpose of the use or the market harm.  Decision: 9 votes for Campbell, 0 vote(s) against