Media Law

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 Ariella's
twelfth birthday, why would he claim that he was not
her father? Such that, there was no evidence to prove
that Ariella truly is Witriol's 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. Witriol's 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.

C. In the case of Ariella Witriol-Mitchell being an
add-on to her mother's case, she has the right to file
claims of libel, infliction... [continues]

Read full essay