[mindslight]

> This question is structured, specifically, to see if the reader knows about the laws of libel and publicity

How would one's answer change if they had never heard of these concepts? For this question, these topics only come up to be ruled out. I can see these things tripping someone up if they know enough about the concepts to involve them, but not enough to see that they don't apply, and perhaps this is the only point.

> not mean we use the commonly used english definitions of those words in the legal context

IMHO "newsworthy" as a term of legal art doesn't seem far off from "newsworthy" in the common vernacular, just a bit more formalized and specific. I think the problems arise when someone attempts to stretch the lay meaning of the word to justify something (say equating newsworthy with gossip-worthy).

On the other hand (and this is opening up a whole nother can of worms), I would say that there is merit to idea that words in laws should be interpretable as plain English instead of being defined arbitrarily by previous cases. The law should be written such that the average person can read and understand it themselves with a modicum of effort - being forced to hire a professional and expend considerable resources to answer fundamental questions about what one is permitted to do is itself a violation of equal protection and an erosion of the very idea of the rule of law.

[mannykannot]

>How would one's answer change if they had never heard of these concepts?

I am not sure who 'they' are, but ignorance of the law is no excuse - especially in the bar exam.

[jldugger]

I believe the questioner is asking more about what alternative answers laypeople might choose that an educated lawyer would reject?