Introduction
In the case of this paper, the analysis of the breach of tort especially trespasses and defamation is done. These will assist in the decision making process as well as assisting the Buzz Company from incurring the liabilities which arises due to such breaches. Besides, it will be used as a precedent in other similar cases which might happen at a future date. The paper covers both scenario one and two respectively.
Situation one
In the letter from Dewey a law firm, Cheatum and Howe of Los Angeles claimed that their client, Miscreant together with his bodyguard was defamed during the interview in the Buzz; Theo Marcus said defamatory statements that led to public radicle and protests by HU students. In response to the allegations, in law, the defendant must prove some elements so that the court can admit such as defense. For instance, there must be an element of truth about what the allegations. In this case, Theo was supposed to interview MisCreant at the Jam but MisCreant did not attend. However, the content of the article that caused protests from the students was not written by either Theo or the buzz but by Freddie. Freddie was an independent writer who did not use either buzz platform or was never interviewed by Theo. Even though the content of the article was defamatory and an insult to females students, former President Obama and Hilary Clinton and was linked to MisCreant as the author, there was no truth connecting Theo and the Buzz in the article. In addition, Theo interviewed BLM student who simply said that he heard from his cousin that the owner of that defamatory article was MisCreant. There is no evidence in the case to show that Theo, the interviewer, said that the content which was defamatory was MisCreant and therefore there is no legal basis for Cheatum and Howe to ask for the apology from Buzz since Freddie is the author but he did it on behalf of MisCreant without MisCreant knowledge. It was, therefore, true that MisCreant had a defamatory statement because Freddie used his name to write the defamatory statement and it was his duty to ensure that the article is free from bias. Therefore, Theo and the Buzz did not commit any offense and therefore was not liable for the defamation and the injury of the artists hence should not write an apology letter.
Situation two
In the case, Theo is the editor that has committed an offense by publishing the name of the teenage despite the law prohibits such. The law says that according to the case, a teenager who is less than 18 years of age's name should not be published. However, Theo went ahead and published the name of the teenager. This action put Buzz in a legal conflict with the state and the Theo should be charged for violating the ethical professionalism. In addition, Buzz should also take disciplinary action against Theo because he intentionally conducted his business against the code of conduct and the law. On the issue of publishing the sex video, Theo violated the law and should be charged with negligence case since as a journalist, he was fully aware that such contents could be accessed and viewed by the public and went ahead and published the dirty article and sex video. The move can be defamatory and tend to affect the reputation of the victim. Further, Theo trespassed as he parked his vehicle in a way that infringed the rights of other users. Instead of charging the firm, he should be charged independently because he acted on his capacity as an individual. Based on the above, it can be said that Theo violated the policy and the law and was therefore liable and should be charged.
Conclusion
In both situation one and two, there were legal issues that arise and the defamation was evident in situation one but Theo was not the cause. In situation two, however, Theo has violated the law and should face the full force of the law.
